1 AO-808-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 808 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1069 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 704 OF 2011 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 739 OF 2011 Mr. Jocky Camilo Fernandes ... Appellant/Orig.Plaintiff vs. Municipal Corporationo of gr.Mumbai. .. Respondents/Org.Defendants Mr. A.M.Saraogi, Advocate, for the appellant Mrs.K.K.Soraan,Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 26th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The original plaintiff has preferred this Appeal against rejection of Notice of Motion whereby he had sought temporary injunction restraining the respondent/Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit structure by virtue of the notice and the order passed under Section 351. The disputed structure is said 2 AO-808-11.sxw to be unauthorised on the plot bearing No. 153, Norman House. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the plaintiff is in occupation of the premises since 1997 and at least he could produce the documents to show that he is in occupation since 1999 or so. The Bank accounts reveal that he has been paying the rent to his landlord Norman Francis Miranda. Not only this, there is also a licence issued under the Shops & Establishment Act which indicates that the plaintiff is carrying on business in the said premises since the year 2000. Whether the structure is constructed without prior permission or in violation of the approved plan and whether the structure is otherwise protected under any law, needs to be examined. The landlord may be in better position to explain the same as he is expected to be in possession of all the documents, including sanctioned plan of the building. 3. In view of these circumstances, in my opinion, the following directions will meet the ends of justice :- The plaintiff shall implead his landlord as a defendant in the suit within two weeks. The newly added defendant shall be served within for weeks and shall file reply within 4 weeks thereafter.The Municipal Corporation has already filed reply and if finds it necessary, may file additional affidavit in reply 3 AO-808-11.sxw after reply is filed by the newly added defendants. After the replies are filed, the trial Court shall hear the notice of Motion No.704 of 2011 afresh and decide the same on its merits. Till fresh decision on the Notice of Motion, the parties shall maintain status quo. Appeal and application stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)