: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.506 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1026 OF 2008 IN B.C.C.C.SUIT NO.1027 OF 2008 M/s.D.S. Mittle & Co. ....Appellant V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corpn.of Gr.Mumbai ....Respondent Mr.Pravin K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mr.Darshan R. Mehta i/b M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order although for different reasons than those furnished by the learned Judge. The Appellant had been permitted by the Respondent to put up the hoardings on certain terms and conditions contained in a letter dated 9.5.2007, the relevant portion whereof reads as under :- "Sir, . By direction, I have to inform : 2 : you that your request for further extension with effect from 01.08.2005 for your hoarding of site 40’x20’ on the footpath near Sulabh Sauchalaya at K.K. khade Marg permitted to you for the period from 1.8.2003 to 31.7.2005 under First Finder Scheme is considered by the administration vide Addl.Municipal Commissioner’s orders under No.AMC/C/1147/III dt.5.5.2007. . Accordingly without prejudice to the contention of M.C./M.M.C. extension fro 1.8.2005 is granted subject to payment of Advertisement fees and Ground Rent as per First Finder Scheme on proportionate monthly basis and also subject to outcome of Writ Petition No.1132 of 2002 which is presently pending in the Hon’ble High Court. . You are also directed to submit an Indemnity Bond cum Undertaking to the effect that you shall abide by the orders that may be passed either in W.P. 1132 of 2002 or by any other Court and you shall remove the hoarding as and when directed by M.C.G.M. without claiming any compensation or any alternate site. . You shall continue to maintain Sane Guruji Udyan and the conditions which were communicated to you by this office’s earlier letter under No.SL./3593/LAD dt.15.6.1998 shall also be strictly adhered to at all the time." 2. Mr.Samdani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the duration of this agreement is upto and inclusive of the date of the disposal of Writ Petition No.1132 of 2002. The submission is not well founded. What paragraph 2 quoted above provides is that the contract : 3 : contained in the said letter is "subject to outcome of Writ Petition No.1132 of 2002". There is nothing in the language of the sentence which suggests that the duration of the agreement is upto the disposal of the Writ Petition. 3. Faced with this Mr.Samdani submitted that the last paragraph quoted above indicates the same. Apparently the Appellant had been permitted to put up the hoardings on several sites earlier. One of the conditions, it is stated, was maintenance of two subways and a garden at a annual cost of about Rs.20.00 lacs. He states that the Appellant had agreed to this extension contained in the letter dated 9.5.2007 on the basis that the same would be in existence till the disposal of the Writ Petition. I do not agree. Even assuming that the Appellant had expected the contract to last till the disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Respondent cannot be bound by such expectation which was neither communicated nor provided for in the agreement. 4. The policy under which the extension had been granted by the letter dated 9.5.2007 has now given way to a fresh policy. This policy is referred to in the impugned letter of termination dated 30.4.2008 issued : 4 : by the Respondent. The new policy for displaying the hoardings contemplates inter-alia invitation of tenders. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent is not entitled to formulate such a policy. In any event, the policy has not been challenged. 5. Finally, Mr.Samdani submitted that the Appellant ought to be allowed to continue the hoarding till the new hoarding is permitted pursuant to the new policy. This is a matter for the Respondent to decide. Needless to add that if the Appellant files any proceedings for damages, the same will be decided on their own merits. 6. The Appeal from Order is therefore dismissed. The stay granted by the trial Court shall continue till 31.7.2008. It is however clarified that the process of inviting the tenders and even granting them shall not be stalled by virtue of this stay. 7. The Civil Application is also accordingly disposed of.