In the plaint the appellant has admitted that he
was carrying out minor repairs and renovations. For
ascertaining whether what was being constructed by the
respondent was within ambit of Section 254 of the B.P.M.C.
Act or not, the appellant ought to have given details as to
what she was doing and what she meant by minor repairs and
renovations. If the repairs and renovations which she has
carried out are covered by Section 254 of the B.P.M.C. Act,
in that case the appellant ought to have given notice to the
Commissioner of her intention to make repairs or additions
etc. Admittedly, no such notice was given. It is also not
case that any plan, structural drawing etc. were submitted as
per Section 255 of the B.P.M.C. Act. Even in oral evidence
that is led by the appellant, nowhere it is explained what
‘repairs & renovations’ she was carrying out to make house
habitable and proper. In fact, the examination in chief is
nothing but almost copy of the plaint in the form of
affidavit. So, on the material before this Court and in
absence of any details, it cannot be said that the repairs or
renovations which the appellant was carrying out was not
covered by Section 254 of the B.P.M.C. Act. {Para 5}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2005
Ashabai Murlidhar Karpe Vs The Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad,
CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.
DATED : 30.06.2009.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment