Elizabeth D Souza vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai

bdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4474 OF 2025
1. Elizabeth D’Souza ]
of Mumbai, aged about 82 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room ]
No.7, Angela Villa, I.C. Colony, ]
Borivali (West), Mumbai 400103. ]
]
2. Maximiano Fernandes ]
of Mumbai aged about 76 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room ]
No.5, Angela Villa, I.C. Colony, ]
Borivali (West), Mumbai 400103. ]
]
3. Cyril Barretto ]
of Mumbai, aged about 73 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room ]
No.3, Angela Villa, I.C. Colony, ]
Borivali (West), Mumbai 400103. ]
]
4. Lucy Rodrigues of Mumai, aged ]
about 65 years, Indian Inhabitant, ]
residing at Room No.15 Angela ]
Villa, I.C. Colony, Borivali (West), ]
Mumbai 400103. ]
]
5. Joanna D’costa of Mumbai, ]
aged about 50 years, Indian ]
Inhabitant, residing at Room No.11, ]
Angela Villa, I.C. Colony, Borivali ]
(West), Mumbai 400103. ]
1/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

6. Reynold Pereira ]
of Mumbai, aged about 49 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room ]
No.16, Angela Villa, I.C. Colony, ]
Borivali (West), Mumbai 400103. ] ….Petitioners.
Vs.
1. Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai, a statutory body ]
incorporated under the Mumbai ]
Municipal Corporation Act, 1881, ]
having its office at Mahapalika Marg,]
Opposite CST, Mumbai. ]
]
2. Designated Officer, ]
(B&F) R/North Ward, Office of ]
Assistant Commissioner R/North ]
Ward, CTS No.921/7, Dahisar ]
Village, Rustomjee Colony, ]
Rangnath Keskar Marg, Dahisar ]
(West), Mumbai – 400068. ]
]
3. Bhavesh Sanghrajka ]
having address at Shiv Kunj, ]
Caves Road, Opp. Kalavati Aai ]
Temple, Jogeshwari (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 060. ]
]
4. Kartik J. Shah, ]
207-B, Samir Apartments, S.V.Road, ]
Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058 ] …. Respondents.
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Dhishan Kukreja, Mr. Mohan Salian,
Mr. Shabbu Kumar, Ms. Harshita Kotian and Ms. Hrithika Shetty,
Advocates, i/by MGS Legal, for the Petitioners.
2/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

Ms. Smita Tondwalkar, Advocate for the Respondent-MCGM.
Mr. Chandrakant Phartade, Junior Engineer (B & F), R/N Ward, MCGM
is present in Court.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
RD
DATE : 3 JULY, 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioners are tenants of a building called Agnela Villa
located at the address mentioned in the cause title. The present Petition
st th
challenges the communications dated 21 August 2025, 4 September
th
2025 and 19 September 2025 issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the
said building has been classified as a C-1 structure and the Petitioners
have been directed under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888 to vacate the premises for demolition of the
structure.
3/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

3. Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the impugned notices were issued disregarding two structural audit
th th
reports dated 8 August 2023 and 28 April 2025, both of which
categorized the building as a C-2B structure requiring repairs and not
demolition. The tenants were desirous of undertaking the necessary
repairs and had repeatedly called upon landlords - Respondent Nos.3 and
4 to carry out the same. As no steps were taken, the Petitioners
themselves undertook the repair work.
th
4. On 29 July 2025, Respondent No.2 informed the
Petitioners that, owing to alleged inconsistencies in the structural audit
reports, the matter had been referred to the Technical Advisory
th
Committee ("TAC"). On 16 August 2025, the Petitioners by their
advocates letter, informed Respondent No.2 that repair work had already
st
commenced. On 21 August 2025, Respondent No.2 informed the
Petitioners that the TAC had classified the building as a C-1 structure
and directed immediate evacuation. Although the Petitioners repeatedly
sought a copy of the TAC report, the same was not furnished to them and
the impugned communications were issued. Aggrieved thereby, the
th
Petitioners have approached this Court. On 11 June, 2026, Respondent
No.2 disconnected the water supply and threatened to disconnect
electricity of the said building.
4/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

5. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar, learned counsel appearing for
th
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, tenders a copy of the TAC report dated 12
August 2025. The same is taken on record and marked ‘ X-1’ for
identification. The TAC report recommends that the building be
classified as a C-1 structure requiring immediate demolition.
6. To counter the same, Mr. Kanade tenders an affidavit dated
th
12 June 2026 along with photographs depicting the present condition of
the building. The affidavit records that the repair work has been
completed, the structure is presently habitable and is no longer in the
condition alleged by Respondent No.2. The affidavit, consisting of nine
pages along with the annexed photographs, is taken on record and
marked ‘X-2’ for identification.
7. At the outset, it is difficult to appreciate why the TAC
report, which formed the very basis of the impugned action, was
withheld from the Petitioners despite their repeated requests. Denial of
the report deprived the Petitioners of an effective opportunity to respond
to the findings on which the drastic action under Section 354 was
founded.
5/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

8. Be that as it may, the subsequent developments as
th
demonstrated from the photographs annexed to the affidavit dated 12
June 2026 establishes that the Petitioners have completed the repair
work. The building presently stands in a substantially different condition
from the one considered by the TAC in August 2025 and the photographs
which are part of ‘X-1’ . The impugned communications and the notice
under Section 354 proceeded on the premise that the building was in a
dangerous and ruinous condition warranting immediate demolition. That
factual foundation no longer survives and there does not appear to be any
imminent danger to life or property. Hence, the impugned
communications, founded on a factual situation which has undergone a
material change, cannot be sustained.
9. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a) , which reads thus:
‘(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus and/or certiorari, a writ in nature of
mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
and quash and/or set aside the impugned
st th
communications dated 21 August 2025, 4
th
September 2025 and 19 September 2025 (Exhibits
‘L’, ‘M’, and ‘N’).’
6/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt

10. Respondent No.2 shall not threaten to disconnect water
supply or electricity on the basis of the impugned communications and
we direct that the water supply and the electricity connection, if
disconnected, shall be reconnected by the Corporation, forthwith. We
clarify that if Respondent No.2 is of the view that the present condition
of the building warrants action under the statute, it is always open to it to
undertake a fresh inspection and follow the due procedure in accordance
with law.
11. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) above.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
Digitally signed by
SUNNY ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
Date: 2026.07.07
12:45:01 +0530
7/7
94 WP-4474-2025.odt