1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 358 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.434 OF 2009 Shanta Sunder Shetty. ..Appellant. Vs. Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai. ,,Respondent. Mr. Lalit V. Jain for the Appellant. Smt.K.K. Soraam for the Respondent. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 30TH JULY, 2009 PC : 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff challenging the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the City Civil Court rejecting the plaintiff s motion. In the suit, it is the plaintiff s case that she is occupant of two shops in the suit building. She was served with notice under section 354 of the Act calling upon her to pull down the building. It is her case that the 2 owners have not been served with the notice and since there are several occupants occupying the suit building, it is impossible for her to carry out the requirement of the notice. From the written statement filed in the suit, it appears that the notice only has been served upon the occupant and there is no averment that the notice was served upon the owners. In the fact situation of the case, it is impossible for any single tenant-occupant to pull down the building. Though Section 53 gives power to serve a notice upon the owner/occupant, where there are several different occupants,common sense dictates that the owners will have to be served the demolition notice since it is their building which is being asked to be pulled down. Apart from this, the civil rights of the owners will be affected by pulling down the building and it is essential to serve notice upon them. That has not been done in this case. It is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the building is dilapidated and the lives of the occupants are in 3 danger. If the appeal is admitted and stay is granted, the suit will remain pending for several years. In the circumstances, the Advocate for the respondent states that if the liberty is granted to give a fresh notice under Section 354 of the Act to the owners as well as the present occupants then notices dated 16.5.2006 served upon the occupants can be withdrawn. Statement is accepted. Notice which is impugned in the suit being Notice dated 16.5.2006 and other notices issued to the occupants will stand withdrawn with liberty to issue fresh notice to the owners as well as the occupants under Section 354 and to take further action according to law. The Advocate for the appellant states that in view of the acceptance of this statement and the withdrawal of the notice impugned in the suit, he would not like to press this appeal and would also like to withdraw the suit. In the circumstances, appeal as well as suit stand withdrawn. Civil Court to pass a formal order in this regard. It is made clear that, in case fresh notice is issued by the 4 respondent, the parties have liberty to take all contentions. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.434 OF 2009 2. As the appeal is disposed off, civil application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of as withdrawn. ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)