: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.858 OF 2009 Joseph D Cunha .. Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Respondent ..... Mr. Rahul Tiwari i/by D.R. Tiwari for the appellant Mr. J. Xavier for the respondent-BMC ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay being L.C. Suit Noi.4422 of 2006 for two prayers. A declaration that the suit structure was demolished by the Corporation without following principles of natural justice. He also prayed for grant of an accommodation in lieu of the demolition of the plaintiff s structure as mentioned in prayer clause (a). : 2 : 2. This suit was attended to by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court and by judgment and decree dated 20 th April, 2009, the said suit came to be dismissed against which this first appeal is filed. 3. I have extensively heard learned advocate Mr. Tiwari in support of the appeal. In the body of the judgment at para 10, reference to letter dated 13 th February, 2006 is found where the learned Judge has observed that the letter addressed by the plaintiff dated 13 th February, 2006 goes to show that plaintiff himself had stated that the structure was demolished by himself to enable the defendant to widen the road. Across the bar, learned advocate for the appellant upon instructions stated that such a letter was not produced. It is difficult to accept such contention as the learned Judge has made categorical reference to the said letter. Even if, it is accepted for a moment that such a letter was not written, one can look to the case keeping in view the prayers of the suit. 4. The plaintiff approached the Court for a declaration that the suit structure was demolished by the Corporation illegally and in the next breath, he : 3 : seeks an alternate accommodation in lieu of the demolished structure at the cost of Corporation. In the normal course, if a person suffers demolition at the hands of the Corporation in an illegal manner, he will insist that the Corporation should reconstruct the structure at the same site where the structure was in existence. It is just not possible that such a person will seek alternate accommodation. On this count itself, the case of the appellant as a whole cannot be accepted. 5. In the course of argument, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Corporation had orally assured that an alternate accommodation will be provided to the appellant. This case of the appellant cannot be accepted because there is no question of oral assurance given by the Corporation being a Government body. If the Corporation were to give assurance certainly such an assurance would have been mentioned in a letter duly addressed to the appellant. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that it was assured by the Corporation that an alternate accommodation will be given, the case of the appellant that the appellant is entitled for an : 4 : alternate accommodation, cannot be accepted. 6. In my view, the appellant has failed to make out a case that the structure was demolished by the Corporation illegally. The appellant has also failed to show that the Corporation had assured that the alternate accommodation would be given to the appellant. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and has arrived at conclusion, which cannot be interfered with. 7. In view of the above, first appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, the order. ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. . There shall be no order as to costs. . Civil Application No.2436 of 2009 is dismissed in view of the order of dismissal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)