Sau Rajani vs. Sau Smita

ITEM NO.9 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1580/2021

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-12-2019 in SA No. 111/2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay At Nagpur)

SAU RAJANI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SAU SMITA & ANR. Respondent(s)

(WITH I.R. and IA No.10984/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 10-02-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR
• For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1 Mr Somiran Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that (i) besides the plea of unauthorized construction, the case in the plaint is that a nuisance has been caused by the by the respondent – defendants; (ii) jurisdiction to decide the issue of nuisance would not lie with the prescribed authority under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976; (iii) the bar of jurisdiction will not be attracted under Section 71; (iv) the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Arvind Singhal v Max

<span id="page-0-0"></span>Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2021.02.11 17:25:12 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Therapiya Limited1 which in turn refers to the judgments of the Division Benches of the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court supports the submission; and (v) the bar contained in Section 71 and Section 177 applies to a proceeding in the nature of eviction and hence is not attracted.

• 2 Issue notice, returnable in twelve weeks. Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks of service. List for final disposal thereafter.
• 3 Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER