The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Wednesday urged the Bombay high court to dismiss actor Sonu Sood's petition seeking to restrain the civic body from carrying out demolition at his property in Mumbai.
Sood suppressed the facts that demolition had been carried out at the building for illegal construction earlier too and he had no licence to run a hotel there, the BMC said.
The actor moved the HC after the Dindoshi City Civil Court refused to restrain the civic body from taking action against alleged unauthorised alterations at the building which stands in Juhu area.
Sood converted six floors of the residential building into a hotel without permission, the BMC has alleged.
Arguing before Justice P K Chavan, BMC lawyer and senior advocate Anil Sakhare said the demolition notice was issued in October 2020 after it came to light that he had made several alterations in breach of the sanctioned plans.
The actor constructed 24 hotel rooms on six floors, numbered them, and guests were found to be staying in these rooms, Sakhare said.
Advocate Amogh Singh, Sood's lawyer, contended that he carried out only beautification work for which the BMC's permission was not needed.
Sood had applied for a change of user of the property in October but the application was pending, he said.
But the BMC lawyer pointed out that he had not submitted any proof of such an application.
Parts of the property had been demolished by the BMC in November 2018 and again in February 2020 for unauthorised construction, Sakhare said.
"He keeps restoring demolished portions every time without permission. He has no technical permission or a licence to use the property as a hotel.
"Yet, he suppresses these facts in his appeal....the appellant has not come with clean hands," Sakhare said, demanding that the plea be dismissed.
The actor's lawyer also told the court that he had mortgaged the property with a private bank and was using the funds for 'social causes'.
Last year, Sood had earned praise for helping migrant labourers who were returning to their native states after lockdown was enforced for coronavirus.
Justice Chavan, however, said this point was not relevant.
The court said it was reserving its ruling which will be pronounced soon.