2. The facts giving rise to suit No. 2011 of 1956, from which appeal No. 224 of 1957 arises, are shortly these. The plaintiffs are tenants of a building known as "Mor Bungalow", situate at Tejpal Road, Vile Parle. It appears that the house was constructed in or about the year 1910. On 28-12-1954 a notice under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was served upon defendant No. 1, which is a limited company and the owner of he property, requiring the first defendant to do certain repairs. On 14-2-1956 a second notice under Section 354 was served upon defendant No. 1 asking the first defendant to pull down the building as stated in the notice within a specified period of sixty days. Defendant No. 1 then wrote to the plaintiffs on 9-3-1956 intimating to them about the notice served upon it, dated 14-2-1956, and by the letter it asked
3. In the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the notice issued to the first defendant under Section 354 was mala fide issued by the City Engineer in collusion with the first defendant. They also alleged that Section 354 was ultra vires and invalid as it conferred on the Municipal Commissioner and arbitrary, unrestricted and unfettered discretion to order the pulling down of any structure and also because the section did not provide for the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The plaintiffs further contended, that Section 354 was void as it affected the plaintiffs' fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
limited company, filed a written statement and disputed the averments made by the plaintiffs. In the suit, apart from the first defendant, the owner, the plaintiffs made the Bombay Municipal Corporation as the second defendant in the suit, and by a written statement filed by the Corporation, it was contended that the notice issued under Section 354 was not mala fide, that the Court could not interfere with the executive authority conferred by Section 354 and that it denied the allegation made against it or collusion. Further, it was contended that Section 354 was not void and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them.
appeal, Mr. Phadke appearing for the plaintiffs has taken up three points. It has been urged, firstly, that the notice issued to the first defendant under Section 354 is mala fide both tin fact and in law. It is then urged that the authority acting under Section 354 must act judicially and in the present case the authority had not acted judicially, while issuing the notice under Section 354. It is urged, in the last place, that Section 354 was void, in view of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. I will deal with the points in the order in which they have been taken.