SM 1 905.ao.1330.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1330 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1732 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1330 OF 2011 Shri. Jallu Malajibhai Desai and another ....Appellants. Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ....Respondent. ____________ Mr. L. S. Shukla for the Appellants. Ms. K. K. Soraan for the Respondent-BMC. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2011. P.C.: Heard. 2. The refusal to grant injunction in the notice of motion presented by the appellant by the Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi Division, Mumbai by order dated 11th October, 2011 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 3. The appellant is taking exception to the notice issued by the municipal corporation under Section 351 of the MMC Act directing the appellant to remove the unauthorised structure. In the notice issued by the municipal corporation, the address given is Garde Nagar, S. N. Dubey road, Dahisar (E) and the Assessment Bill is produced on record in the name of one Hirabai K. Waghela, wherein the address is given as Ghartan Pada, S. N. Dure road, Dahisar (E), Mumbai 400 068. The trial court on considering the documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the Assessment SM 2 905.ao.1330.11 Bill and the documentary evidence produced by the appellant do not pertain to the suit structure. The Assessment Bill produced is of the year 2006-07 and there is nothing to indicate that the documents pertains to the suit structure. There is no name recorded either of the the plaintiff or the predecessor in title but the bills is in the name of one Hirabai. The evidence in the form of ration card produced on record was also found as irrelevant. The electricity bill, which is produced on record, is in the name of Bala G. Bharwad and Kanabahi Walabhai Gohil. Besides these documents, there are some deeds of Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sale and those are between Makwanans and Jallu Maljibhai Desai. However, there is no prima facie evidence to show that these have any nexus with the suit structure. In that view of the matter, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner has come to the correct conclusion that the structure has been recently put up and is not tolerated structure. 4. Considering reasons recorded in the order, I am of the view that the learned trial court has taken a rational view of the order. Apart from this aspect, plot bearing CTS No. 2749 is stated to be declared as slum. There is nothing on record to indicate that the suit structure is a part of the plot bearing CTS No. 2749. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the order of the trial court does not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of substance and therefore stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R. M. BORDE, J.)