:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from order no.65 of 2009 Appeal from order no.65 of 2009 Appeal from order no.65 of 2009 with with with Civil Application No.84 of 2009 Civil Application No.84 of 2009 Civil Application No.84 of 2009 WITH WITH WITH Appeal from order no.66 of 2009 Appeal from order no.66 of 2009 Appeal from order no.66 of 2009 with with with Civil Application No.85 of 2009 Civil Application No.85 of 2009 Civil Application No.85 of 2009 Narendra Devichand Shah, .. Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, .. Respondent. Mr P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b R.R.Sharma, for the appellant. Mrs K.K.Soraon, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. These two Appeals are directed against the orders, both dated 8.12.2008, passed by the City Civil Court in two different Notice of Motions (Notice of Motion No.2103 of 2006 in LC Suit no.2492 of 2006 and Notice of Motion No.2102 of 2006 in LC Suit No.2493 of 2006), by which both the Motions have been dismissed. The suits are directed against the notices issued by the respondent-corporation under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The notices are in respect of the change of roof from "sloping roof" to "flat roof with ladi coba slab" and construction of M.S. Grill enclosure, on backside of :2: :2: :2: the shop, in the open space, as shown in the sketch attached to the notice under section 351. 2. I have heard Mr Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, for the appellant and Mrs Soraon, learned counsel for the respondent for some time. It appears that the change in the roof from "sloping roof" to "flat roof" was effected some time in 1989. Insofar as MS grill enclosure is concerned, it appears that it is on the rear side of the shop in the open space. In the backdrop of these facts, counsel for the parties have fairly stated that I need not record reasons for disposing of these appeals and they have agreed for the following order: . The appellant shall remove the MS grill enclosure on the backside of the shop in open space, as shown in the sketch annexed to the notice under section 351, within a period of two weeks from today. Mr Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, made a statement that the appellant will remove the MS grill enclosure within the time stipulated. His statement is also accepted. . Insofar as the change of roof from "sloping roof" to "flat roof" is concerned, the appellant is :3: :3: :3: directed to make an application/representation to the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal, Western Suburb, H/West Ward, Bandra, through licenced Architect seeking its regularisation within a period of two weeks from today. The concerned Executive Engineer shall consider the said application/representation on merits in accordance with law. He shall decide the application/representation seeking regularisation as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the application. If the appellant fails to make such application within the time stipulated, the order impugned in the appeals shall stand confirmed. In the event such an application is made by the appellant and even if it is rejected by the concerned Executive Engineer, the corporation shall not proceed to demolish the roof until disposal of the suits. The learned Judge shall endeavour to dispose of both the suits together as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from today. It is open to the parties to place reliance upon the order that may be passed by the Executive Engineer on the applications filed by the appellant seeking regularisation of the construction of the flat roof, before the trial court. :4: :4: :4: . Mr Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submits that in the event appellant’s application seeking regularisation of the construction of the flat roof is allowed by the concerned Executive Engineer, the appellant-plaintiff shall withdraw the suits filed in the City Civil Court. His statement is accepted. . In the circumstances, both these Appeals are disposed of in terms of this order. Consequently, the Civil Applications made therein are disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)