9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Determination of whether the appellants' underground petrol tanks qualify as "building" under section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.
Analysis: 1. The case revolves around the classification of the appellants' 3 underground petrol tanks as "building" under section 299 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The tanks, each with a capacity of 2,000 gallons, are embedded in the ground and service the petrol station. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice under section 299 to take possession of the land occupied by the tanks, leading to the present appeal challenging the notice. 2. The appellants argue that the tanks should be considered "building" based on precedents where underground structures were deemed as such. However, the court examines the definition of "building" under the Act, which includes various structures made of different materials. The appellants describe the tanks with masonry work but fail to establish them as buildings. 3. The court rejects the argument that the tanks qualify as "building" as they are primarily containers for storing petrol and do not transform into buildings due to being underground. The masonry work on the tanks is for protection, not to convert them into a building. Comparisons to drainage pipes highlight the absurdity of considering tanks as buildings. 4. The court emphasizes that the tanks' capability to be shifted indicates they are not structures fixed to the ground like buildings. Legislative provisions within the Act further support that tanks do not fall under the definition of "building," as they lack the concept of occupancy associated with traditional buildings. 5. The court dismisses reliance on English court decisions, stating they are irrelevant to the current case and the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It refutes the claim that the tanks are integral to the petrol pump complex, emphasizing that the tanks themselves do not meet the criteria to be classified as buildings. 6. Ultimately, the court concludes that the appellants' underground petrol tanks do not qualify as "building" under section 299 of the Act. The appeal is dismissed with costs, affirming that the tanks are not subject to the possession notice issued by the Municipal Corporation.
|
