: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.438 OF 2010 Phulabai Dashrath Chavan ... Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Bipin Joshi for Appellant Mr.J.J. Xavier for Respondent-Corp. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 29, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in L.C. Suit No.1953 of 2004. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the Corporation u/s 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, the appellant had instituted the present suit. The trial Court has considered the evidence on record and has held that the suit premises were unauthorised and that the plaintiff-appellant had no right to protection under government policy. 2. A submission was advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the area in which the suit structure is situated has been declared a slum, a notice u/s 351 could not have been issued by the Corporation. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Madhav Gore vs. Bombay : 2 : Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 2001 (4) ALL MR 464. A learned Single Judge of this Court has held that what is protected under the law is only a censused structure in the slum area and not every structure in the area. 3. I have perused the documents on record which are placed before me by way of compilation. I have considered the pleadings which are also placed in the compilation. In my view, the trial Court has committed no error by concluding that the suit structure was unauthorised. The notice has been issued alleging as follows: “Construction of structure with BM walls with AC sheet roof and rolling shutter admeasuring 10.3X14.3+11.3 having height of 12.9 and backside 13.9 (as shown in the sketch)”. 4. It appears that the plaintiff did have a structure of 48 sq.ft. which was constructed by him after he obtained leasehold rights to the land under an agreement dated 11.2.1998. However the present structure which is mentioned in the notice issued u/s 351 is much larger than the structure which is envisaged in the documents produced on record including the lease deed. In my view, therefore, the trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit. The evidence on record has been appreciated in its proper perspective and, therefore, the appeals must be dismissed. 5. Appeal is therefore dismissed. 6. On the application made by the learned Counsel for the appellant notice issued u/s 351 shall not be acted upon for a period of eight weeks from today.