- 1 - ao886 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEALFROM ORDER NO. 886 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1169 OF 2011 Shri Sadhu Tukra Shetty .. Appellant vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.R.D.Soni i.b.Mr.J.K.Hegde for Appellant Ms.K.K.Soran for Respondent CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 12th August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Appeal is preferred by the original Plaintiff against refusal of ad interim relief pending Notice of Motion against a notice and order passed thereon under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by the Ward Officer,Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. According to the plaintiffs, the disputed - 2 - ao886 structure is situated in a slum area which is so notified under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance, Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and therefore action against the alleged unauthorized structure could be taken under the provisions of the Slum Act and not under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. 3. The trial Court while refusing ad interim relief noted that the Notification under the Slum Act notifying this property as a slum area was not produced and therefore, no prima facie case was made out. The Plaintiff-Appellant has produced copy of the Notification before this Court which indicates that the property situated at Squatters colony, Gate No.6, Malvani, Malad (West) Mumbai has been declared as a slum area. The disputed structure of the Plaintiff is situated in that slum area. If it is so, question arises whether the Municipal Corporation was competent to issue notice under - 3 - ao886 section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act. That notice could have been issued by the competent authority under section 3 (2) (2) of the Slum Act. If such a notice would have been issued by the competent authority, an Appeal would lie to the Administrator under section 35 of the Slum Act and the civil suit would be completely barred. All these questions need to be addressed to while deciding the Notice of motion. Admittedly, the Notice of motion is still pending and the Municipal Corporation has not filed any reply so far. 3. Therefore, in my opinion, the Appeal may be disposed of by the following directions : The Municipal Corporation shall file reply and/or written statement within four weeks before the trial Court and the trial Court shall hear and dispose of the Notice of motion within six weeks thereafter. All questions including the question of facts as well as question of applicability of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act or the Slum Act are left open to be decided in the said Notice of motion. Till the decision of the Notice of Motion, - 4 - ao886 parties shall maintain status quo. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 4. As the Appeal itself is finally disposed, Civil Application No.1169 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. J.H.BHATIA, J