The Bombay High Court on Thursday strongly criticized the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for terminating the lease of a trust that operates a gymnasium on St Martin Road in Bandra (West), calling the action "very high-handed."
Court Questions BMC's Lease Termination Notice
A division bench of Justices Makarand Karnik and Shriram Modak directed the BMC to clarify whether it would withdraw the January 21, 2021, notice issued to the Bandra Physical Culture Association, which terminated the lease and demanded possession of the nearly 16,000 square feet plot. The trust had challenged the notice and also the demolition of a portion of the gymnasium on November 2, 2020. On February 4, 2021, the High Court had restrained the BMC from taking any coercive steps.
Arguments Over Unauthorised Construction
Senior advocate Rajshekhar Govilkar, representing the BMC, argued that the trust had reconstructed the demolished structure, which was entirely unauthorised. In response, advocates Firoz Bharucha and Kuber Wagle, appearing for the trust, asserted that they had only erected bamboo and tarpaulin to protect the gym equipment. The judges, however, observed, "This is also a construction." Justice Karnik remarked, "That is completely overreaching the orders of this court." Bharucha then assured the court that the trust would remove the bamboo and tarpaulin starting the next day.
Lease Termination Called 'Disturbing'
Bharucha argued that the trust is a registered lessee and described the notice as "disturbing." He noted that the BMC's Improvement Committee had passed resolutions sanctioning the lease termination and directing the trust to hand over possession, failing which the BMC would be deemed to have taken possession by default. Bharucha claimed the BMC had acted "unilaterally." The court agreed, stating that a lease "cannot be terminated like this" and must follow legal procedures.
Court's Observations and Next Hearing
The judges acknowledged that the BMC is entitled to issue demolition notices for unauthorised structures. However, they pointed out that the notice in question pertains to the land itself and states that the lease has been terminated. "Now the trust is on that aspect ... the manner in which you have done it, whether it is justified? That is the issue," said Justice Modak. The court adjourned the hearing to April 28 for further arguments.
