IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1024 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1024 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1024 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1025 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1025 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1025 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1026 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1026 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1026 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1027 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1027 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1027 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1028 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1028 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1028 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1029 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1029 OF 2003, APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1029 OF 2003, AND AND AND APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1030 OF 2003. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1030 OF 2003. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1030 OF 2003. A.O.NO.1024/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Appellants (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. Mohd.Hajif A.Hamid, Shop No.81. 2. Mohd.Shafi A.Gani, Shop No.82. 3. Kausar Yunus, Shop No.83 4. Rubina Yunus, Shop No.84. 5. Rubina Yunus, Shop No.85. : 2 : 6. Tasnee Yunus, Shop No.86, 7. Noor Mohd.Yusuf, Shop No.87, 8. Farhan Yusuf, Shop No.88. 9. Asif M.Shafi, Shop No.89, 10. Mohammed Siddique. Shop No.90. 11. Mohd.Akram Noor Mohd. Shop No.92, 12. Shirin Mohd. Yusuf. Shop No.93. 13. Mohd.Ahmed Makki. Shop No.94. 14. Kausar Yunus, Shop No.95, 15. Mohd.Asif Mohd.Shafi, Shop No.96, 16. Cutleriwalla A.Rashid, Shop No.97 All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants having their respective shops at Sara Corner, 16, Global Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400 001. 17. Global Marketing, a Partnership firm carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. : 3 : 18. The Court Receiver, appointed as Receiver of the suit property in MCOC Special Case No.3 of 2003 having his office at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents. (Nos.1 to 16-Org. Plaintiffs and Nos.17 & 18-Org. Defendants 3 & 4.) A.O.NO.1025/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Appellants (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. Seema Arshad Zahher, Shop No.100 2. Ilyas Nathani, Shop No.101/102, 3. Modi Bhaskar Jayantilal, Shop No.103. 4. Sabira Ibrahim Merchant, Shop No.104. 5. Bilal Akhtar Shaikh, Shop No.105, : 4 : 6. Mariyam Abdyul Aziz, Shop No.106. 7. Asad Nazir Seila, Shop No.107, 8. Owais Nazir Seila, Shop No.108. 9. Syed Asif Hasmatali. Shop No.109. 10. Tasneem Husain, Shop No.110. 11. Khatija Mushtaq Reshamwala Shop No.111. 12. Haji Usmanwali Mohammed Shop No.112, 13. Sajid Shafi Navsariwala, Shop No.113. 14. Sharifa Mohammed Shop No.114. 15. Fuaad Patka Shop No.115. 16. Rabia Barkat Shop No.116. 17. Aslam Malkani, Shop No.117. 18. Qureshi Zakir Ali Shop No.118. 19. Atique Mia Ahmed. Shop No.119. 20. Khatiza Bai Abdul Aziz, Shop No.120. 21. Hoorbanu M.Y.Motiwala. Shop No.121, 22. Sayeeda H. Pitodia : 5 : Shop No.122, 23. Asif Bhai Hussein Munna Miya, Shop No.123. 24. Fazal Abbad, Shop No.124, 25. Ismail Shakoor Zaveri, Shop No.125. 26. Salim Nagani. Shop No.126. 27. Zubaida A.Kadar, Shop No.127. 28. Haji Abdul Razzak, Shop No.128. 29. Roshan A.R.A. Shop No.129. 30. Sajid Shafi Navsariwala Shop No.130. 31. Ayaz A.J.Ahmed, Shop No.131. 32. Rabia Ahmed Ghojariya, Shop No.132. All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having their respective shops at Sara Corner, 16, Global Compound, Saboo Siddique Road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400 001. 33. Global Market, a partnership firm, carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room Noa.2, 16, Moonuim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. 34. The Court Receiver, appointed as Receiver of the : 6 : Suit property in MCOC Special Case No.3 of 2003 having his office at Azae Maidan Police Station, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents (Nos.1 to 32-Org. Plaintiffs & Nos. 33 & 34-Org.Defts Nos.3 and 4.) A.O.NO.1026/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Appellants. (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. Smt.Fatimabi Abdul Rehman Shaikh, of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, carrying on business at Shops Nos.2, 6 to 8, 16, Globa, Compound, Saboo Siddique Road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400001. 2. Global Marketing, a partnership firm, carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. 3. The Court Receiver, appointed as Receiver of the suit property in MCOC Special Case No.3 ofg 2003 having his ... Respondents office at Azad Maidan Police (No.1-Org.Plaintiff Station, mumbai 400 001. & Nos.2 & 3 - Org. Defts.3 & 4.) : 7 : A.O.NO.1027/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ... Appellants Fort, Mumbai 400 001. (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. Dawood Vadia Hussain, Shop No.292, 2. Mohd. Arif, Shop No.293, 3. Moosa Suleman Koradia Shop No.294. 4. Asma Mohd. Yusuf, Shop No.296. 5. Noor Mohd. Shop No.297A. 6. Furqan Rashid, Shop No.297B, 7. Mohd.Shafi Abdul Gani Shop No.297C. 8. Sharifa Mohammed Shop No.297D, All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants having their respective shops at Sara Corner, 16, Global Compound, Saboo Siddique Road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400001. : 8 : 9. Global Marketing, a partnership firm carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddique Road, Mumbai 400 001. 10. The Court Receiver appointed as Receiver of the suit property in MCOC Special Case No.3 of ... Respondents 2003 having his office at (Nos.1 to 8 - Org. Azad Maidan Police Station, Plffs.& Nos.9 & 10- Station, Mumbai 400 001. Org.Defts.3 & 4.) A.O.NO.1028/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ... Appellants Fort, Mumbai 400 001. (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. Mohd. Rizwan Taibani, Shop No.257. 2. Salim Abubaker Shaikh, Shop No.258. 3. Salim Mustafa Shaikh, Shop No.259. 4. Ebrahim A.R.Shaikh, Shop No.260. 5. Ayesha Allah Baksh Shop No.261, 6. Maaz Ahmed Zamzam Shop No.262. : 9 : 7. Zarina Mohd. Lokhandwala Shop No.263. 8. A.G.Shaikh. Shop No.264/267. 9. A.Gafoor Shaikh, Shop No.265. 10. Farida Begum, Shop No.266. 11. Mohd.Kasifm Yusuf, Shop No.268. 12. Daulat Fakir Mohd. Shop No.269. 13. Hanif H.Lokhandwala. Shop No.270. 14. Arif Shaikh Shop No.271 & 274 15. Fardan Fuad Patka Shop No.273. 16. Shabir Shaikh. Shop No.275. 17. Mustafa Karim. Shop No.276. 18. Amina Aboobacker Shop No.277. 19. Yusuf Navsariwala, Shop No.278. 20. Zohra Dawood Wadia, Shop No.279. 21. Bilal Akhtar Shaikh Shop No.280. : 10 : 22. Faizuddin Ahmed Shop No. 281. 23. Amin A. Kader. Shop No. 282. 24. Hajra Begum Shop No. 283. 25. Mohd. Yunus Shop No. 284. 26. Sajid Mohd. Shafi. Shop No. 285. 27. Abdul Rashid. Shop No. 286. 28. Abdulla Yusuf, Shop No.287. 29. Mohd. Yusuf Mohd.Yunus. Shop No.288. 30. Mohd. Ebrahim. Shop No.289. 31. Mohd.Moin Sakhawat Mansuri Shop No.290. 32. Pankaj S.thakkar Shop No.291. All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants, having their respective shops at Sara Corner, 16, Global Compound, Saboo Siddiqui road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400001. 33. Global Marketing, a partnership firm, carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. : 11 : 34. The Court Receiver, appointed as Receiver of the suit property in MCOC Special Case No.3 of 2003 having his office at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai 400 001. .... Respondents (Nos.1 to 32-Org. Plaintiffs & Nos. 33 & 34-Org. Defts.3 & 4.) A.O.No.1029/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ... Appellants Fort, Mumbai 400 001. (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) Versus. 1. M.Yusus M.Ali. Shop No.133. 2. Hamida Mahmood Masania Shop No.134. 3. Abida Bashir Shop No.135. 4. M.Yusuf Mohd.Habib. Shop No.136. 5. Mohd.Sohail Iqbal Nagani Shop No.137. 6. Zaibunnisa A,Rashid Shop No.138. : 12 : 7. Avesh Hanif Pitodia Shop No.139. 8. Nadeem Patodia Shop No.140. 9. Irfan Yunus Shop No.141. 10. Hanif HAn Pirosi Shop No.142. 11. Ayaz A.J.Ahmed. Shop No.143. 12. Sadaf Aslam Shop No.144. 13. Farheen Arif, Shop No.145. 14. Yasmeen A.Razak Shop No.146. 15. Raif Qhmed Ismail Shop No.147. 16. Amin A.Kader. Shop No.148. 17. Naheed Abdulla Navsariwala Shop No.149. 18. Fazal Khan, Shop No.150. 19. Sajida Majid Reshamwala Shop No.151. 20. Sayed Altaf Shop No.152. 21. A.Kader Shop No.153. 22. Mohd.Shafi Habib : 13 : Shop No.154. 23. Ayesha Rashid Cutlerywala Shop No.155. 24. Imran Yunus Shop No.156. 25. Hamida A.Sattar Shop No.157. 26. Saira Salim Khan Shop No.158. 27. Mohd. Sohail Kagzi, Shop No.159. 28. Sanjeev Keshav, Shop No.160. 29. Abdul Basit Shop No.161. 30. Irfan A.Gani Bawa Shop No.162. 31. Bashir Abdul Samad Shop No.163. 32. Abdul Aziz Shop No.164. 33. Bashir A.Samad Shop No.166. 34. Arifa A.Shaikh Shop No.167. 35. Fajeriya Sayed Ahmed Shop No.168. 36. Arfunnisa A.Quddus Shop No.169. 37. Aasiya A.Wahid, Shop No.170. 38. Mohd.Yusuf Millwala, : 14 : Shop No.171. 39. Shabbir Shaikh Shop No.172. 40. Aisiya Asif, Shop No.173. 41. Hanifa Yunus Shop No.174. 42. Ajmal Ansari, Shop No.175. 43. Global Marketing, a partnership firm, carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. 44. The Court Receiver, appointed as Court Receiver of the suit ... Respondents property in MCOC Spl.Case No.3 (Nos.1 to 42 - Org. of 2003,having his office at Plaintiffs and Nos. Azad Maidan Police Station, 43 & 44 - Org. Mumbai 400 001. Defts.Nos.3 & 4.) A.O.NO.1030/03. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, having its Office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, "A" Ward Municipal LOffice, 134-E, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, ... Appellants Fort, Mumbai 400 001. (Org.Defendants Nos.1 & 2.) versus. 1. Asma Mohd. Rafique. Shop No.298A : 15 : 2. Asif Suleman Shop No.198B. 3. Mohd.Yusuf Noor Mohd. Shop No.299. 4. Shabir Shaikh, Shop No.299A. 5. Arif Fuzul Rehman Shop No.299B 6. Farzama A.Kader Shop No.299C. 7. Amin A.Kader Shop No.299D. 8. Mohd.Bilal Shaikh, Shop No.299E. 9. Ayesha Shaikh, Shop no.299F, 10. Abdul Kader A.Gani Shop No.378. 11. Sahin Mohd. Shafi Shop No.379. All of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitants having their respective shops in Sara Corner, 16, Global Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Near Manish Market, Mumbai 400 001. 12. Global Marketing, a Partnership firm, carrying on business at Global House, 1st floor, Room No.2, 16, Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddiqui Road, Mumbai 400 001. 13. The Court Receiver, appointed as Receiver of the : 16 : Suit property in MCOC Special ... Respondents Case No.3 of 2003 having office (Nos.1 to 11-Org. at Azad Maidan Police Station, Plaintiffs & Nos. Mumbai 400 001. 12 & 13 - Org. Deft.Nos.3 & 4) Shri K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Shri N.V.Walawalkar and Ms.Geeta Joglekar for the Appellants in all the Appeals. Shri E.P.Bharucha, Senior Counsel i/by M/s.S.K. Srivastava & Co. for the Respondents in A.O.No.1024 of 2003. Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar i/by M/s.S.K.Srivastava & Co. for the Respondents in A.O.Nos.1025/03 to 1030/03. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, JJ. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, JJ. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, JJ. DATED : 21st & 22nd FEBRUARY, 2004. DATED : 21st & 22nd FEBRUARY, 2004. DATED : 21st & 22nd FEBRUARY, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT. ORAL JUDGMENT. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. All these Appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order dated 25th November 2003 passed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, these Appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. The order impugned has been passed by which the Notices of Motion for temporary injunction taken out by the Respondents/Plaintiffs have been allowed. The subject matter of all the suits are shops/galas in which the Respondents are carrying on their business. The said shops/galas are situated in South Bombay in an area predominently used for commercial and business : 17 : activities. The challenge in all the suits is to the notice issued under the section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1888") by the Appellants and the orders passed by the Appellant No.2 on the basis of the said Notices. The Appellant No.2 is the Assistant Municipal Commissioner who has passed the order of demolition of the suit premises on the ground that the construction thereof is unauthorised. 3. I have heard submissions of Shri K.K.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants. I have also heard Shri Bharucha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Appeal No.1024 of 2003 and Shri Dhakephalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in rest of the Appeals. 4. Before I refer to the facts of each individual case, it will be necessary to record the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. Shri Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants has taken me through the impugned Judgment and Order. His first submission was that the trial Court has not considered each and every document produced by the Respondents/Plaintiffs. He has taken me : 18 : through the various documents produced by the Respondents/ Plaintiffs. He pointed out that the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs was that there were 7 old structures on land bearing Cedestral Survey No.14/1504 of the Fort Division bearing Plot Nos.7 to 10 and the said structures were assessed from the year 1961-62 to the Municipal tax. He pointed out that the case of the Respondents was that the shop premises/stalls which are subject matter of the suits are created by carrying out internal renovation to the old existing structures. He, however, submitted that there is no material on record to show that these structures in respect of which action is sought to be taken by the Appellants can be co-related to the old existing structures which were in existence since 1961-62. He submitted that in case of some of the old structures action under section 351 of the said Act of 1888 was initiated in the year 1991 and a suit was filed for challenging the order passed the Corporation by the person allegedly holding the said structure. He pointed out that the said suit has been dismissed. He submitted that even for establishing prima facie case, the Respondents/Plaintiffs should have produced documentary evidence to prima facie show that the said shops/galas are only part of the old structures which were in existence prior to the year 1962. He : 19 : submitted that in some cases there are documents showing that the suit structures were erected after 1993. He submitted that merely by showing existence of some old structures in the year 1961-62 on larger property the Respondents cannot establish prima facie case unless some material is produced on record to connect the existing structures with the old structures which were in existence in the year 1961-62. 5. Shri Singhvi further submitted that the orders passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner were in the nature of quasi-judicial orders and therefore, without examining the merits of each case by referring to the documents on record, the learned trial Judge should not have restrained the Appellants from implementing and executing the orders of demolition. He submitted that as the documents produced by the Plaintiffs are not specifically considered by the learned trial Judge, it was necessary to interfere with the discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. He has made submissions with reference to certain specific documents on record. I propose to deal with the said submissions specifically while dealing with each and every individual case. : 20 : 6. Shri Bharucha the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Appeal from Order No.1024 of 2003 pointed out that the present Appeals are under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Appeals being against the discretionary order passed by the learned trial Judge, this Court should be slow to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. He relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1990) (Supp) SCC page 727 (Wander Ltd. and Another v/s. Antox India P.Ltd.) He relied upon the following observations of the Apex Court: "14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek : 21 : to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The Appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial tage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion." Shri Bharucha submitted that there is a finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that there existed triable issues for which evidence was required to be led. He submitted that the trial Court has recorded a finding that at least in the year 1961 the suit structures were in existence and if the documents produced on record are considered, prima-facie case was made out. He submitted that there is a voluminous documentary evidence on record starting from the year 1961-62 and the issue : 22 : relating to the legality of the suit structures can only be decided after an opportunity is given to the Respondents to lead evidence. He has taken me through the assessment records of the Appellant No.1-Corporation. He has also pointed out the earlier notice issued under section 351 of the said Act of 1888 and by comparing the sketch annexed to the said notice with a map produced by the Respondents he submitted that prima-facie it is clear that in 1991 notices of demolition were issued by the Appellant No.1-Corporation and from the year 1991 no action was taken in respect of the suit structures. He submitted that when no action was taken for such a long time, the learned trial Judge was right in granting interim protection. He urged that this is a case in which evidence will have to be led on various triable issues. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has passed a discretionary order on examination of all the documents before him and no interference is required with the said discretionary order. 7. Shri Dhakephalkar the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in the other appeals while replying to the submissions made by Shri Singhvi has taken me through the orders passed by the Appellant No.2 under : 23 : section 351 of the said Act of 1888. He submitted that the orders passed by the Appellant No.2 show non-application of mind. He also submitted that the stand taken in the affidavits-in-reply filed by the Appellants is inconsistent with what is held in the orders passed by the Appellant no.2. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by the Appellant No.2 that the suit structures have been re-erected after demolition of the old structures. He submitted that the only conclusion recorded by the Appellant No.2 was that existence of the suit structure on the datum line (i.e. the date fixed by the Appellant No.1 for tolerating unauthorised structures) was not established and that the structures are unauthorised. Shri Dhakephalkar submitted that the Respondents have taken their respective premises from one M/s.Global Marketing and they were not aware about the earlier notice issued in the year 1991. He submitted that the order of temporary injunction has been passed by the learned trial Judge on consideration of all the documents and as such the said order is operating from the year 2003 and no interference is called for as the suit filed by the Respondents can be heard expeditiously and that the issues involved in the suit can be gone into and decided only after the parties are allowed to produce their oral : 24 : and documentary evidence, and therefore no interference with the discretionary order passed by the learned trial Judge can be made at this stage and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 8. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties will have to be considered in light of facts of each of the individual case. So far as the Appeal Nos.1024 to 1026 of 2003 are concerned, it is not in dispute that the facts are more or less identical and the documents relied upon by the parties are also the same. Therefore, I propose to deal with the said three Appeals together. A.O.1024/03, 1025/03 & 1026/03. 9. It will be necessary to refer to the averments made in the reply given by the Respondents to the notice under section 351 of the said Act of 1888. As the facts in these three cases are identical, I am referring to the documents on record in Appeal No.1024 of 2003. The allegation in the Notice dated 13th May 2003 issued under section 351 is that there is an unauthorised construction of a (shed) structure with brick masonary walls and A.C.Sheet roofing ademasuring 11.30 m.x 6.60 : 25 : m. and height of 3.10 m. and 3.50 m. at the southern side adjacent to Sara Shoppee in the plot known as Moonim Compound, Saboo Siddique Road, Mumbai 400 001. A detailed reply is given to the said notice by the Advocate for the Respondents. It is disclosed in the reply that the designated Court appointed under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as MCOC Act) has passed an order on 19th May 2003 by which the property in dispute has been attached and the Senior Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, has been appointed as the Receiver of the said larger property. It is submitted that without the permission of the Designated Court under MCOC Act action cannot be taken against the structures. The said reply is given on behalf of the 17 persons in which it is stated that they are the lawful tenants of the shop premises and they are inducted in the said premises by the Respondent no.17 i.e. M/s.Global Marketing a partnership firm. It is stated that Plot bearing C.S.No.14/1504 of Fort Division ealrier known as Plot No.XXXII and XXIIIA was