1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1001 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1001 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1001 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLN. NO. 1368 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2136 OF 2006 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 2438 OF 2006 M/s. Janus Investments Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Respondent (org. Defendant) Mr. V.A.thorat, Senior Counsel,Advocate, a/w Mr. Prakash G. Lad, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31st January, 2008. DATE : 31st January, 2008. DATE : 31st January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for both the parties. 2. To state in brief, the assessed building occupied by certain tenants was allowed to be demolished and accordingly the plaintiff, who is a builder, had constructed a new building wherein the erstwhile tenants were to be accommodated and the remaining premises were to be disposed of otherwise by the plaintiff. The permission granted was only for residential building. According to the plaintiff-appellant, prior to its demolition, some of the tenants were already using the building for commercial purpose and, therefore, the plaintiff had made a representation to the Urban Development Department of the Government on 29.3.2005 for change of user. ON 28.9.2005, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the architect of the plaintiff informing that necessary NOC from the Urban Department for the proposed work was still not received and as the plaintiff had failed to comply with the requisition of the earlier letter dated 14.2.2005, the proposal for change of user was rejected by the Corporation. In view of this, the plaintiff had filed the suit, wherein the plaintiff had claimed the 3 declaration that unless and until the representation dated 29.3.2005 is decided by the Government, the Corporation shall not act upon the letter of the respondent dated 28.9.2005. The plaintiff also sought a direction to the defendant-Corporation to consider the proposal for change of user after decision of the representation dated 29.3.2005 by the Government. The Notice of Motion was rejected. Hence the present Appeal was preferred. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Vasant L. Parab, Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, it was pointed out that the representation of the plaintiff was already rejected. The letter dated 24.10.2007 addressed by the Urban Development Department of the Government to the Plaintiff clearly shows that the representation was rejected by the earlier letter dated 31.8.2007 and there was no change in its stand. From this, it is clear that the Urban Development Department has already rejected the representation of the plaintiff. In view of this, the suit itself does not survive and the plaintiff cannot get any relief claimed by it. 4. In view of this, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff also concedes that the present Appeal does 4 not survive. However, the learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the plaintiff is no more owner of the said building because the erstwhile tenants and some purchasers of the premises are already in occupation and if any action is to be taken, it may be taken against them by the Corporation as per law. Mr. Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation points out that action against them is to be taken by the Corporation in respect of point No.(i). The Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to take action against the actual occupants. But according to him in respect of points Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the notice dated 1.6.2006 action has to be taken against the plaintiff-Builder. Anyway, in this Appeal, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into that dispute. Taking into consideration the facts noted above and the rejection of the representation of the plaintiff by the Government, I find no substance in the present Appeal. 5. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. The interim order of status quo shall stand vacated. 6. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)