1 ao347.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Appeal from Order No. 347 of 2011 WITH Civil Application No. 729 of 2011 IN AO No. 347/2011 Gani Kalu Shaikh ...Appellant v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh i/b. Mrs. Savita Dande for the appellant. Mr. N.V. Walavalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. Ms. K.K.Soran for the respondent. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 28th September, 2011 PC: Since the challenge raised in the Appeal from Order is to the ad-interim order passed in the Notice of Motion in LC Suit No. 369/2011 by Judge, City Civil Court. This Appeal from Order can be disposed of by directing the City Civil Court to decide the Notice of Motion expeditiously. While refusing to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant-original plaintiff, it is observed by the Court below that BMC officials have already taken over possession of the premises and the plaintiff is not in possession thereof. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been allotted the possession of the flat No. 406 of Building No. A-10, near Indian Oil Colony, Borla, Ghatkopar Type III, G.M. Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 admeasuing 225 sq. feet area. The flat has been allotted to the plaintiff in lieu of structure of hutment situated at R.A. Kidwani Marg which has been taken over for the purpose of road widening. 2. The contentions raised by the plaintiff have been controverted by the 2 ao347.11.sxw defendants by submitting affidavit-in-reply before the City Civil Court. Plaintiffs seeks leave to place reliance on the possession receipt which records that the Flat No. 406 has been allotted in favour of the plaintiff. However, the possession receipt does not bear the signature of Assistant Commissioner, F Ward. The allotment letter on which reliance is placed by the plaintiff refers to allotment of Flat No.406 to the plaintiff. The authenticity of the documents on which reliance is placed by the plaintiff is doubted by the Corporation. 3. It will be open for the Judge of the City Civil Court to consider the evidence placed on record and deal with the aspects such as authenticity of the record etc. 4. While issuing notice before admission, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo in order to verify the contentions of the appellant-plaintiff as to whether he is really in possession of the disputed premises. This Court directed the appointment of the Commissioner and call for the report. It has been reported by the Commissioner that the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the disputed premises. It is the contention of the Corporation that infact the possession of unauthorized occupants was vacated and corporation has assumed the possession. However, he has again enforced his possession over the suit premises at the subsequent stage and thus he was found to be in possession. The factual aspect as to whether the Municipal Corporation has infact evicted the unauthorized occupants and they enforced their possession or not is a matter of investigation and necessary findings can be recorded in that regard by the trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence that will be led before the Court. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate for the trial Court to decide pending Notice of Motion expeditiously. 3 ao347.11.sxw 6. In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status-quo. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court shall decide the pending Notice of Motion in LC Suit No. 369/2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from today. With these directions the Appeal from Order stands disposed of. 7. The parties shall have liberty to place on record affidavits, say or documents before the City Civil Court. 8. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application do not survive and stand disposed of. (R.M.BORDE, J)