1 (904)AO.300.2011 WITH CA.434.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 300 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 434 OF 2011 Mrs. Leela Subbaya Shetty ...Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. The Municipal Corpn., of Gr. Mumbai ...Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. P. S. Dani i/b. Mr. Vinay J. Hegde, Advocates for the Appellant Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. J.J. Xavier a/w. K.K. Foram for MMC CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. The refusal of the ad-interim injunction in a suit challenging notice issued by the MMC under Section 351 of MMC Act dated 18th December 2010 is in issue. 2. The Plaintiff contends that she replied to the notice. She did not produce any document in reply to the notice. She has, however, shown the Court all her documents. The oldest document is a plaint in a suit filed by the owner of the restaurant in 1974 upon a notice under Section 347 of the BMC Act issued on 9th May 1974. The notice shows an unauthorized wooden frame work of specified dimensions. The reply to the notice in the suit shows that no construction has been put up and that only furniture work is done. Hence that document conclusively shows that there was no structure at the suit site relied upon by the Plaintiffs in 1974. 2 (904)AO.300.2011 WITH CA.434.2011.sxw 3. The next document is a letter in respect of regularization of a structure applied for. The letter of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the MMC shows two structures of 66 sq. mtrs., and 39 sq. mtrs., having been regularized. The suit structures are of different dimensions. They are 46x18 ft., and 10x20 ft. It cannot even be seen whether the structures regularized were at the same site as the suit structures. This document shows that there were other structures of the Plaintiff which are not at the suit site and the suit structures were not at the suit site then. 4. The third document is the assessment of 1981. The assessment is in respect of a front open space. Hence that document conclusively shows that the front was an open space until 1981 where one of the suit structures is at present. 5. The fourth document is a copy of a plan used for Excise purpose. It was verified in 1990. The plan does shows construction at the suit sites. Hence it can be seen that the unauthorized construction has come up some time in 1990. Such construction cannot be stated to be an authorized structure. 6. Hence the impugned order is correct and the appeal is dismissed. 7. The Civil Application is disposed off accordingly. 8. Ad-interim order is continued for 3 weeks. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)