Curation Team
MUMBAI: Bombay HC has imposed Rs 50 lakh costs on a businessman who let out his shop to a bank in a redeveloped building on Mhada land in Kurla that has no occupation certificate (OC). It directed him to pay the sum to the PM Cares Fund in two weeks.
Justice Kamal Khata on Friday “forthwith” vacated a Jan 8 ad interim protection order. He directed Mhada “shall immediately enforce” the Jan 7 order and a subsequent Oct 7 order that directed Keshav Chheda (65) and/or his assignee to vacate the premises in Pancharatna CHS in Nehru Nagar within 48 hours, failing which it would be sealed.
Mhada’s advocate Akshay Shinde had urged HC to vacate the Jan 8 order, saying the building lacks an OC. Andheri resident Chheda’s petition said Mhada’s Jan 7 ex parte order was passed without notice or hearing against principles of natural justice. His advocate, Aditya Shirke, said he had executed a Feb 23, 2024, lease with Jammu & Kashmir Bank. He sought six months to vacate, citing public inconvenience if the bank branch were to be closed abruptly.
Justice Khata noted that the sole ground in the petition was breach of natural justice for want of notice prior to the Jan 7 order. To a query on how Chheda inducted a bank under a commercial lease into a premises lacking an OC, “there was no satisfactory answer”. While Chheda attributed possession to Parsn Construction and Developers Pvt Ltd, Justice Khata said, “But that does not absolve him of the basic obligation to ensure lawful occupation.” “A person engaged in business cannot feign ignorance of the fundamental requirement of an OC for occupation and commercial use,” he added.
Justice Khata said matters “aggravated” after the bank branch was commenced in such premises. “The bank’s ‘responsible’ officers owed a duty of diligence to verify statutory compliances, including OC and fire NOC, prior to opening the branch. Having failed to do so, the petitioner or the bank cannot invoke natural justice to prolong an unlawful occupation or claim indulgence on the footing of ‘public inconvenience’ of its own making.”
Justice Khata noted that for nine months, no meaningful steps were taken to vacate. “Instead, the ad interim order was used as a shield to continue a non-compliant occupation,” he said. “A litigant who approaches the court must do so with clean hands.”
Dismissing the petition with “exemplary” costs, Justice Khata also directed the bank’s chairman/chief to initiate an inquiry in six weeks to identify the officers responsible for commencing and operating the branch, examine lapses, if any, by public officials or private entities that enabled such occupation, and take action, including appropriate proceedings and imposition of penalties. He clarified that the authorities are not precluded from taking independent statutory action. He rejected Shirke’s request to stay the judgment.
