IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.260 OF 2008 Vijay R. Mhatre ..Appellant. Vs. The Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Prasad S. Dani for the Appellant. Ms.Geeta Jogalekar for the B.M.C. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008 DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008 DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : Admit. Heard finally. 2. The impugned order requires to be interfered with only in part. It is true that the notice under Section 351 stated that the entire structure viz. ground floor and the first floor were unauthorised. However, after the hearing afforded to the Appellant, the Assistant Commissioner held that only the first floor of the structure was constructed unauthorisedly and authorised the removal of the first foor structures only. 3. As far as the first floor is concerned, there is nothing to indicate how the same was built. The assessment records do not show the same. The order of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be said to be illogical, unreasonable or otherwise bad in law, warranting any interference. 4. Mr.Dani submitted that the first floor is actually only a mezzanine. Even assuming that to be so, there is nothing to indicate that the same was authorised or that the same is a protected structure. Once again, the assessment orders do not indicate the same. 5. The mere fact that an application for repairs has been made, does not assist the applicant as the applicantions do not indicate the existence of a mezzanine structure. 6. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is disposed of by holding that the Respondents shall be entitled to take action only in accordance with the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.6.2005 and not as per the notice under Section 351. 7. The Appellant is at liberty to make an application for regularisation. If the same is made within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 8. For a period of four weeks and in the event of an application for regularisation being made, till the same is decided and for a period of two weeks after service of the order on the Appellant, the Respondents shall not demolish the structure. 9. The application for regularisation, if any, shall be submitted to the Executive Engineer (Building Proposals) Eastern Suburbs, through their licensed architect. 10. The order is stayed for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the Appellant to challenge the same.