Assistant Engineer (B&F) vs Parekh Market Premises Society Limited & Ors.

By this Appeal from Order, the Appellants challenge the common Order dated 3^rd February 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, in Notice of Motion No. 4395 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No. 2117 of 2023 in L. C. Suit No. 2599 of 2015 filed by Respondent No. 1.

By the said order, the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and other concerned authorities were restrained from vacating and sealing the premises on the 9^th and 10^th Floor of the Appellant’s building by the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and from taking any coercive action pursuant to letter dated 27^th October 2015 and Order dated 22^nd September 2020, pending the disposal of the suit.

The present suit pertains to the question of adequacy of ingress and egress in relation to fire safety compliance in respect of the building known as Parekh Market Premises Co-operative Society Limited (the Society), located near Kennedy Bridge, South Mumbai. It is a commercial building comprising of Ground plus Ten floors, was constructed in 1981, and the occupation certificate for the 10^th Floor was granted in the year 1994.

Pursuant to a complaint received on 20^th March 2015 from Mr. Jeetendra Ghadge, a resident of Parekh Estate Building, alleging non-compliance of fire protection requirements by the Society, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) issued a Complaint Report dated 7^th April 2015, holding that the Society had failed to comply with the undertakings dated 16^th October 1978 and 24^th May 1979.

It is the Society’s case that, despite correspondence with the concerned authorities and supplying them with the necessary documents, including the Occupation Certificate of the building, the Assistant Engineer (B&F) ‘D’ ward by a letter dated 27^th October 2015, directed the Assistant Engineer (Customer Care) D ward of BEST Undertaking to disconnect water and electricity supply to the 9^th and 10^th floors of the building.

Aggrieved thereby, the Society filed the present suit, inter alia seeking a declaration that the letter dated 27^th October 2015 was illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. By an interim order passed in the Notice of Motion No. 4395 of 2015, the Trial Court directed the CFO to comply with procedure under Section 8(1) of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 (‘Fire Prevention Act’ for short).

The Society preferred Appeal from Order No. 147 of 2020. However, pending the Appeal, the CFO passed an order dated 22^nd September 2020 directing removal of persons from the 9^th and 10^th Floor of the building.

Consequently, with the leave of the Trial Court, the Plaint was amended to also challenge the order dated 22^nd September 2020.

By the impugned order dated 3^rd February 2024, the Trial Court, after considering the material on record, held that there was no breach of condition or violation of the sanctioned plan. The society has two entrances - the main entrance (7 meters wide) and the rear entrance (3.8 meter wide), which had been widened from 2.75 meters to 3.8 meters pursuant to the Society’s undertaking. Both the entrances abut public roads.

The Trial Court rightly observed that once an Occupation Certificate is issued, there is no provision under the BMC Act for its revocation. After considering all the relevant aspects and reports, it concluded that there was no justification to disconnect the water and electricity supply of the 9^th and 10^th floors of the building since it has adequate fire-engine access. Accordingly, both Notice of Motions Nos. 4395 of 2015 and 2117 of 2023 were allowed.

Having carefully perused the impugned order along with the record and heard Mr. Walavalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, whose submissions were both fair and balanced, I find that the interlocutory order is comprehensive, well-reasoned and free from any perversity.

The Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v Antox India P Ltd.,^{11.1990 Supp SCC 727 : 1990 SCC OnLine SC 490} held that the Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court, unless such discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or where settled principles of law governing grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions have been ignored. An appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle, and the Appellate Court will not reassess the material merely to reach a different conclusion if the view taken by the Trial Court was reasonably possible on the material before it.

In view of the above, the Appeal from Order stands dismissed.

Consequently, in view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Interim Application does not survive and accordingly same is also disposed of.