1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2008 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2993 OF 2008 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 2172 OF 2004 Shankar Pramanik ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. ... Respondents (Orig. Defendants) Mr. R.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.J.Xavier, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 16th July, 2008. DATE: 16th July, 2008. DATE: 16th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. The plaintiff/appellant is in occupation of room No.23-B, Kantilal Chawl, Shreyas Colony, Aarey Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai as a tenant where W.C. is situated in front of the said room in open space of that chawl. 3. The respondent - Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 1.3.2004 as to why the unauthorised construction of W.C. should not be demolished. This notice was issued to in all 8 persons, including the present appellant. They submitted a reply contending that the W.C. was in use for 10 years. The appellant thereafter filed L.c. Suit No.2172 of 2004 challenging that notice. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit holding that the construction is not authorised. Against that the plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal. 4. Even though in the reply dated 4.3.2007 sent on behalf of all the 8 persons, including the present appellant, it was contended that the W.C. was constructed for more than 10 years ago with prior permission, it appears that no permission was produced before the trial Court. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had himself made the construction. According to him, the landlady had 3 informed him that she had obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation to construct the W.C. However, neither that permission was was produced before the trial Court nor that landlady was examined before the trial Court to prove that permission was granted. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant could not point out any legal provision under which such construction can be protected under the law. Therefore, I find no substance in the present Appeal. 5. Therefore, the Appeal stands summarily dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant makes a statement that the appellant shall make an application to the Executive Engineer, Building Proposals,Municipal Corporation, Western Suburb,Kandivli, within four weeks from this date and the construction may be protected till the application for regularisation is decided. To this, the learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection. Therefore, if the plaintiff-appellant makes an application before the concerned Executive Engineer for regularisation of the construction of W.C. within four weeks from this date, the said Executive Engineer shall take a decision on that application within four weeks thereafter and the Municipal Corporation shall not take 4 any action in respect of the said W.C. till the decision on the application for regularisation. In case he fails to make application for regularisation within the stipulated period, the Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to take action as per law. 7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the C.A. does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)