: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.375 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.452 OF 2009 Kedia Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay .. Respondents Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b. Mr. D.R. Shah for the Appellants. Smt. K.K. Soraan for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 8 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the City Civil Court on 3rd March, 2009, refusing interim relief and dismissing the Notice of Motion filed by them. According to the appellants, a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, has been incorrectly issued to the appellants since they have not changed the user from Garage to commercial premises. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the suit premises are being used as a Godown and not for any other purpose. : 2 : 2. An affidavit has been filed by one Raghunath M. Kedia, who is the Director of the appellants. By this affidavit dated 9th November, 2009, the affiant has undertaken to this Court that the suit premises, i.e. Basement Godown No.6, situated at Mittal Court ‘B’ Wing, Basement, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021, will not be used for any other purposes than as a Godown. He has also undertaken that the appellants will not permit I.L. & F.S. or any other person or entity to use the Godown for any other purposes. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondent- Municipal Corporation states that since this undertaking has been furnished to this Court, the respondent-Municipal Corporation will not act on its notice. However, she submits that liberty be granted to the respondent-Municipal Corporation to take such action, as is required, in case the premises are used for any purpose other than as a Godown. The learned Advocate for the appellants states, on instructions from Raghunath M. Kedia, : 3 : who is present in Court, that the wooden partition which had been installed in the suit premises has also been removed. 4. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order is disposed of by accepting the undertaking dated 9th November, 2009 of Raghunath M. Kedia. The statement made on behalf of the appellants regarding removal of the wooden partition is also accepted. 5. The Appeal from Order is disposed of. The statement made on behalf of the respondent- Municipal Corporation is accepted with liberty as prayed for. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.452 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......