Writ Petition No. 5154 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 05TH MAY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petitioner is the landlord of the suit premises namely a shed in which the respondent No.3 in his capacity as a tenant is running a flour mill. The Corporation issued notice to the respondent No.3 informing him that No Objection Certificate to his flour mill is rejected. The respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 387 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, after hearing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, allowed the respondent No.3's appeal on the ground that the flour mill is being run since 1960. The petitioner filed a revision before the 2 Municipal Commissioner under the provisions of Section 387 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The petitioner's revision was dismissed on the ground that he was neither a party to the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 nor he tried to intervene in the aforesaid appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the wording of Section 387 of the said Act and submitted that he is entitled to challenge the order of the further appellate Authority in revision. submitted that the respondent No.3 being dominus litis He has to the appeal, the petitioner is entitled to file revision under Section 387 of the said Act. Under the provisions of Section 387, only aggrieved person is entitled to file revision challenging the order of the appellate Authority. In my opinion, the petitioner-landlord cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in a proceeding arises out of notice informing the respondent No.3 that No Objection Certificate to run flour mill is rejected. It is not disputed that petitioner-landlord has filed eviction proceedings against the respondent No.3 and the same are pending before the Rent Controller. The petitioner cannot evict the respondent No.3 under the guise of exercise of powers under Section 387 of the said Act. I do not find 3 any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the Municipal Corporation. The petition is devoid of substance and the same is dismissed as such. *rrg. JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.