: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.838 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1006 OF 2008 Goverdhan D. Chheda .. Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. B.S. Baraskar for the Appellant. Smt. K.K. Soraan for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order is directed against the order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, passed on 2nd May, 2008. By this order, the Notice of Motion preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. The trial Court has observed that the appellant came into possession of the suit structure only in 1997 and, therefore, he is not entitled to the concessions made by the respondents-Municipal Corporation in view of the policy of the State Government to protect those persons who are in occupation of censused structures prior to 1st : 2 : January, 1995. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 2. It was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that once the structure is protected under such policy, it does not matter as to who occupies the structure. It is submitted that since the structure was in existence prior to 1995, once a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is issued, the appellant is entitled to alternate premises. The submission is untenable. The policy stipulates that occupants as on 1st January, 1995 of censused structures are entitle to alternate accommodation. 3. The Appeal from Order is rejected. 4. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1006 of 2008 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......