1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 741 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2379 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 2495 OF 2007 Mr.Anil Chhabra .......Appellant Verus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ........Respondents Mr.C.K.Tripathi, adv.for appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv.for the respondent/B.M.C. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 5 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for hearing. Mrs.Joglekar waives service of notice of final hearing. Heard the advocates. 2. The structures sought to be protected by this Appeal from Order are 2 admittedly unauthorized. The appellant has put up M.S. Frame with P.V.C. Sheets at the roof on the rear and left side of Rinkle Co­operative Housing Society Ltd admeasuring approximately 35 ft X 12 ft and 35 ft X 15 ft respectively thereby covering the entire open space of the building on the two sides. He has also constructed a temporary shed admeasuring 15 ft x 15 ft on the front side with B.M.walls of approximately 4 ft height on the ground floor of the society. Therefore, the respondent issued notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 dated 21st June, 2007. 3. The Director of Rinkle Co­operative Housing Society Ltd complained to the respondent about the unauthorized construction on the part of the appellant. The officers of the respondent inspected the site to ascertain the complaint and thereafter the impugned notice came to be issued. Since the structure is admittedly unauthorized, there can be no protection granted to it, particularly when the structure is of such magnitude. Mr.C.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first structure is nothing but an awning put up by the appellant for protection of the children coming to a pre­school in the name of Podar Jumbo Kids Pre­school being run in the building. Whatever be the purpose for building up the awning, if the same is an unauthorized structure, no relief can be granted to protect the same. Further, the court has rightly considered the applicability of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional 3 Town Planning Act which bars jurisdiction of the civil courts. I the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal from Order. The trial court has rightly considered the interim application and rejected the same. Hence, the Appeal from Order is dismissed with costs. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]