: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.964 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2754 OF 2009 Mohammed Farook .. Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Mumbai .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17th June, 2009 of the City Civil Court,Bombay, in L.C. Suit No.3399 of 2001. According to the appellant, the suit filed by him only sought a direction against the respondent- Municipal Corporation, to disclose the particulars of the alternate accommodation which is made available to the plaintiff as mentioned in the letter dated 25th June, 2001. According to the plaintiff he is entitled to an alternate : 2 : accommodation in lieu of the hut that he is occupying. 2. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that he is occupying Hut No.232 situated at Milind Nagar Zopadpatti, Behind “B” Building, Matunga Labour Camp, Mumbai-400 019. He has relied on a letter of 25th June, 2001 issued to him for demolition of his hut. This letter mentions that an alternate accommodation has been provided which he should avail of, else his hut would be demolished. A subsequent letter has been written on 5th November, 2004 by the respondent-Municipal Corporation indicating that Hut No.232 would be demolished as the plaintiff had not been able to establish that Hut No.232 was authorized. 3. The written statement filed by the respondent- Municipal Corporation indicates that Hut No.232 has been constructed in a vacant place on which Hut No.GNMA-144-2/2 was situated. This hut was occupied by one Sakharam Mahadeo Pawar. He was allotted a transit accommodation and thereafter the aforesaid : 3 : Hut No.GNMA-144-2/2 was demolished. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff occupied Hut No.232 which was constructed on the vacant plot after Hut No.GNMA-144-2/2 was demolished. This hut was erected by one Shaikh Farooq Lala Bansi and the plaintiff purchased it from him. 4. Evidence has been led by the respondent- Municipal Corporation. However, the plaintiff has been unable to support his case that Hut No.232 was in existence as an authorized or tolerated hut and, therefore, he was entitled to alternate accommodation. The trial court has weighed the evidence led before it and has found that the plaintiff was not able to establish his case. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the trial court. The reliance placed on the letters issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation would not take the case of the plaintiff any further. Those letters are in respect of Hut No.232 which the plaintiff could not establish was authorized and he was, therefore, entitled to alternate accommodation. : 4 : 5. The First Appeal is dismissed. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant states that some time may be given to the appellant to vacate the premises since they are residential premises. 7. Considering the circumstances, the appellant is granted two months time to vacate the premises on condition that he and the members of his family submit an undertaking to this Court within a week from today in the usual terms that they will vacate the suit premises within a period of two months from today. The Advocate for the appellant shall furnish a copy of the undertaking to the respondent-Municipal Corporation as well. 8. In view of the above, Civil Application No.2754 of 2009 pending in the First Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......