1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER ST.NO.1647 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.1648 OF 2009 Pushparaj Shetty : Appellant versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay : Respondents. Shri. Anil C Singh i/by D.R.Shah for the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 23, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 20th January 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Borivli Division, Dindoshi, Bombay, by which order the ad- interim relief was refused to the Appellant/Plaintiff. 2. The Appellant has filed Long Cause Suit No.51 of 2009 challenging the notice issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. In the said suit, the Appellant 2 has filed Notice of Motion for setting aside the said notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. It is in the said Notice of Motion that the ad-interim relief was refused. 3. The allegation against the Appellant in the said Notice issued under Section 53(1) is that the Appellant has erected water tank, cabin for cylinders & W.C. In compulsory open space of the building. In terms of the scheme as contained in Section 53, the Appellant is entitled under subsection (3) of Section 53 to apply for permission under Section 44 for retention of the offending structure or works and if such an application is made, pending its final determination or withdrawal of the application, it is postulated in the said section that mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of such use. 4. In view of the Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, the learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant would make an application to the Respondent No.1 Corporation within four weeks from date. If such an application is made, pending its consideration, 3 in the light of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, the Respondent No.1 will not take any action against the offending structures/works. The Appellant would be entitled to produce such documents in support of retention of structures/works as he deems appropriate, as according to the Appellant, the Housing Society, has granted its no objection as also the Respondent No.1 has granted permission some time in the year 1993. If such documents are produced, the Respondent No.1 would consider the same whilst considering the application filed in terms of Section 53 (3) of the said Act. If the order is adverse to the Appellant, the same would not be implemented for a period two weeks of its communication. 5. In the light of the instant order, the learned counsel for the Appellant seeks withdrawal of the above Appeal from Order and the L.C.Suit No.51 of 2009 pending before the City Civil Court, Bombay which are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 4 6. In view of the withdrawal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application St.No.1648 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]