1 ao436-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.436 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 620 OF 2011 Chainadevi wd/d. Devraj Sharma & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Respondent ..... Mr. Rajesh K. Singh for the appellants. Mrs. K. K. Soraan for the respondent – BMC. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MAY 4, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The challenge in the suit is to the notice issued under Section 354 A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and order dated 2nd May, 2011 passed thereon holding that the suit structure is unauthorized. By the impugned order, ad-interim relief of injunction has been refused. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the suit structure is situated in a slum area and the same was in existence as on 1st January, 1995, as per the policy of the State 2 ao436-11 Government, same will have to be protected. His second contention is that action of demolition cannot be taken on the basis of a notice Section 354 A of the said Act. His third submission is that personal hearing has not been given by the officer of the respondent. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. In the reply issued by the predecessor of the appellant (husband of the first appellant) on 27th April, 2010 to a notice under Section 354A, it is stated that the structure had collapsed and he was carrying out repairs. Thus, there is a specific assertion in the reply that the suit structure had come down. It is not the case of the appellants that a permission was obtained for reconstruction. Moreover, there is no prima facie evidence to show that the structure is in a slum area. Even assuming that the structure is in slum area, the reply to the notice shows that the structure was being re- erected. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order wherein the trial Court has recorded a prima facie finding that the suit structure is unauthorized. 4. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. All contentions of the parties on merits of the Notice of Motion 3 ao436-11 and the suit are kept open. 6. Civil Application No. 620 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE