3.AO.1231-08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1231 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1231 OF 2008 Mrs.Meena Atmaram Tulsiani. ..Appellant. Versus The Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.H.K. Vazirani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Vinod Mahadik, Advocate i/b. Mr.R.A. Malandkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1- B.M.C. Mr.R.V. Govilkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vazirani for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr.Govilkar for respondent No.2 and also learned 3.AO.1231-08 2 Advocate Mr. Mahadik for respondent No.1-B.M.C.. In the present A.O., the order passed by the City Civil Court on 17th November, 2008 rejecting ad-interim injunction, is challenged. 3. The simple question involved in the present matter is whether the said order rejecting the ad-interim relief is required to be interfered with. Initially, notice under Section 351 of B.M.C. Act was issued against the present appellant/orig.plaintiff, a tenant, with respect to a certain flat situated at Chembur, Mumbai. According to the appellant she was not given a hearing and behind his back further orders were passed by the B.M.C. directing removal, demolition and pulling down of the notice structure within 15 days. However, on perusal of the said order passed by the B.M.C. Dated 3rd November, 2008 on the very first page, it is submitted that the appellant was represented by his Advocate but no documentary evidence was produced before the B.M.C. in order to establish authorization of the structure which was under notice. 4. Today, it is tried to argue on behalf of the appellant/orig. plaintiff that such notice under Section 351 of B.M.C. Act 3.AO.1231-08 3 came to be issued malafide at the instance of present respondent No.2/orig.plaintiff-landlord as in various earlier suits pending before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai the landlord had failed for taking any action against her tenant i.e. the present appellant. Though such are the allegations, in the instant matter, it is only to be seen whether the structure which was directed to be removed/pulled down, was authorized structure and whether there was any proof produced by the appellant/orig.plaintiff. The answer to this question is in the negative, and as such it is rightly held by the City Civil Court while not awarding the relief even at the ad-interim stage. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the said impugned order and as such the present A.O. stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application is also dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI,J)