: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.107 OF 2010 M/s.Mahavir Enterprises ... Appellant V/s. Thane Municipal Corporation ... Respondent Mr.M.M. Vashi for Appellant Mr.Mahesh Patil a/w. Sayeed Mulani for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 23, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the refusal of the application for interim injunction. The appellant contends that a notice for demolition of his structure in which he runs a shop known as M/s.Shoe Mantar is being demolished although the shop is not illegal. 2. Admittedly, a notice was issued u/s 260(1)(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act in 1989 to the owner of the suit premises calling upon him to show cause as to why the structure owned by him should not be demolished, being illegal. That notice was challenged by the owner by filing a civil suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the owner of the building. However, the appeal preferred by the Corporation was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It appears that in a public interest litigation filed before this Court orders were passed, pursuant to which the : 2 : present notice has been issued for demolition of the structure. 3. The main contention of Mr.Vashi appearing for the appellant is that the structure in which the shop Shoe Mantar is being run bears tika No.137 whereas the notice issued to the owner of his structure was in respect of tika No.23. He submits that this indicates that the two structures are different and that therefore the Corporation ought not to demolish the property bearing Tika No.23, CTS No.38-A. 4. There is no material on record as found by the trial Court that the two structures are different. Even before this Court, no material has been placed on record to indicate that there two structures are not identical. Reliance is placed on the tenancy agreement which shows the structure to be house No.137. However, this would not necessarily mean that house No.137 is not the same as tika No.23. 5. Appeal dismissed. 6. Mr.Vashi, appearing for the appellant seeks an order staying the demolition of the structure for a further period of four weeks. In view of the fact that a stay was granted by the order of 27.1.2010, stay is continued for a period of three weeks from today.