Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai

In this significant ruling on equitable remedies and municipal regulation, Justice R.V. Raveendran laid down strict limits on the power of civil courts to grant interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Supreme Court held that the discretion of the court must be exercised judiciously, grounded in equity, justice, and good conscience. A person who encroaches on public land, constructs without sanctioned municipal plans, or occupies property unlawfully cannot claim an injunction against municipal authorities discharging statutory duties under the Municipal Corporation Act. The Court established that 'prima facie case' does not mean an arguable point of law; it means a prima facie lawful title or possession. Refusing an injunction to unauthorized occupants, the Court held that judicial discretion cannot be used to shield lawbreakers.

• Limits of Discretionary Injunctions: Civil courts cannot grant injunctions to protect illegal or unauthorized constructions.
• No Injunction Against Statutory Authorities: Injunction cannot issue to restrain municipal bodies from executing lawful demolition notices.
• Lawful Possession Mandatory: Possession protected by an injunction must be settled, legal, and lawful; encroachers have no equitable standing.
• Public Interest Superior: Public interest in orderly urban town planning overrides private commercial losses.
• Clean Hands Maxim Enforced: Litigants who suppress demolition notices or create fraudulent tenancies are disentitled to relief.

The appellants claimed to be tenants/occupants of commercial premises in a building known as 'Khatau Chawl' in Byculla, Mumbai.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued notices under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for the demolition of extensive unauthorized commercial structures erected without municipal sanction.

The occupants filed civil suits in the City Civil Court, Mumbai, seeking a declaration and temporary injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structures.

The City Civil Court granted an ad-interim injunction. The High Court of Bombay vacated the injunction, finding that the structures were completely unauthorized.

The occupants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that they were in settled possession and could not be dispossessed without a full trial.

The discretion of the court to grant a temporary injunction is exercised on well-settled principles: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. But over and above these three tests, the court must remember that injunction is an equitable relief. The party who seeks an equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands. He who seeks equity must do equity. The court will not grant an interim injunction to protect an illegal or unauthorized construction or an encroachment on public property. A person who has built without a sanctioned building plan in flagrant violation of municipal laws has no legal right or equity in his favor. If courts were to grant injunctions routinely to protect unauthorized structures merely on the plea of 'possession', it would encourage lawlessness and render municipal planning statutory frameworks unworkable. The plaintiffs completely failed to produce any sanctioned building plan or municipal tax receipt proving lawful construction. The City Civil Court acted with material irregularity in granting an injunction to protect lawless commercial expansion. The High Court was fully justified in vacating the injunction. The appeals are dismissed with costs.

• Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733: Precedent on unauthorized constructions harmonized with Seema Arshad Zaheer.
• Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corp. of Mumbai (2013) 5 SCC 357: Followed Seema Arshad Zaheer to demolish unauthorized upper floors of Campa Cola compound.
• Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2021) 10 SCC 1: Cited Seema Arshad Zaheer on strict enforcement against unauthorized builders.
• Kolkata Municipal Corp. v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) SCC OnLine SC 890: Reaffirmed that courts cannot grant equitable injunctions to lawbreakers.