1 ao1215.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Appeal from Order No. 1215 of 2011 WITH Civil Application No.1607 of 2011 IN AO No. 1215 of 2011 Mr. Noor Mohd. Abdul Kadar ....Appellant v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ....Respondent Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh for the appellant. Ms. K.K. Soran for BMC. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 23rd November, 2011 PC: Notice of Motion presented in L.C. Suit No. 1264/2009 has been turned down by the trial Court by a detailed order passed on 27th and 28th July, 2011. I have perused the order and I do not find any infirmity and inconsistency in the reasons recorded by the trial Court. Apart from this, the striking feature of the matter is that it is the contention of the Municipal Corporation that the signatures appearing on the allotment letter as well as possession letter dated 10th October, 2008 does not belong to the officer who was functioning as Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Engineer at the relevant time. Specific stand is taken before the trial Court. The name of the appellant herein as well as the other similarly circumstanced occupants although appear in annexure-II, they were found to be ineligible for being allotted the tenament. Sofar as disputed signatures are concerned, the affidavit-in-reply is presented by one Suhas K. Karvande, Dy. Municipal Commissioner who was functioning as Assistant Commissioner at relevant time, reiterating his stand that the document 2 ao1215.11.sxw in question does not bear his signature. It is also required to be noted that a police complaint has been lodged in that regard and matter is under investigation. 2. Considering the seriousness of nature of objection raised by Municipal Corporation in respect of authenticity of letters of allotment and possession letter, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly refused to grant indulgence in the matter and turned down the notice of motion. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Appeal from Order is devoid of substance. Hence, stand dismissed. 3. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. 4. The Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks time of four weeks for vacating the suit premises. The Counsel for the Municipal Corporation vehemently opposes the request made by the appellant. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the long tenure of stay of the appellants in the suit premises, I deem it appropriate to grant four weeks time to vacate the suit premises. (R.M.BORDE, J)