- 1 - ao913.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.913 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1209 OF 2011 Shri Shivprasad Kuttanram Gupta .. Appellant vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay.. Respondent Mr.Manoj Shukla a/w Mr.Satyam R.Dubey for Appellant Ms.K.K.Soran for Respondent CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 12th August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Appeal is preferred by the original Plaintiff in L.C.Suit No.1616 of 2011 against refusal of ad interim relief pending the Notice of Motion. 2. It appears that a notice has been issued under section 351 by the Municipal Corporation Act and an order is also passed thereunder for demolition of the portion which was allegedly kitchen but has been converted into a shop. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff points out that the Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the said shop in the year 1994 as per Agreement dated 12th March, 1994 executed by Visanji Virji Mepani and Smt. Devkunvar Mepani as landlords - 2 - ao913.11 and the Plaintiff-Appellant as a tenant. That Agreement shows that the Plaintiff was inducted in the shop No.1 of ground floor of the building known as Dimubai Niwas situated at Valji Ladha Road, Mulund (West) Mumbai-400 080. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the year 1993 an Application was moved by and on behalf of the landlords for change of user and the plan was also sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 31st January, 1994. Copy of the order and the plan are produced before this Court. They are also produced before the Trial Court. If the user was changed from residential to commercial after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation in the year 1994 and the user has been as per the terms and conditions of that order, notice and order passed under section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act may not be valid. According to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant copy of the said map and order are secured by the Plaintiff under the Right to Information Act. The original record must be available with the landlords and the Municipal Corporation. In view of the said documents in my opinion, ad interim relief could not be - 3 - ao913.11 refused as it was necessary to hear the Notice of motion on its merits. 3. Therefore, Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Plaintiff shall also implead his landlords as Defendant in the suit and Notice of motion and serve him within three weeks so that the landlords may produce their relevant records before this Court. The Municipal Corporation shall file reply and/or written statement within four weeks after reply of the landlords or production of documents. The trial Court shall hear the Notice of Motion and dispose of the same within six weeks after the reply is filed by the Municipal Corporation. Till the decision of the Notice of motion, the Municipal Corporation shall not act on the impugned notice and order passed under section 351 of the Act. Parties shall maintain status quo about the disputed structure till then. 4. As the Appeal is disposed of finally, Civil Application No.1209 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. J.H.BHATIA, J - 4 - ao913.11