( 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 APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.124 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.124 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.124 OF 2009 Sayyed Nannhe Ahmed ..Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..Respondents ...... Mr.D. Dwivedi for the appellant Mr. J.J. Xavier for the respondents-BMC ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2009 DATED : 2nd May, 2009 DATED : 2nd May, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The respondents issued notice to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ’said Act’) for removal of the suit structure that is the business premises within 24 hours. The respondents were empowered to do so in their capacity as persons empowered to implement the provisions of the said Act. In the said notice it is also mentioned that if the appellant had documents to show that the suit structure is in existence prior to 1st January, 1995, the same should be produced. The appellant produced various documents which are listed in the impugned judgment and tried to make out the case that the suit structure is prior to 1st January, 1995. The ( 2 ) respondents considered the case and declined the case of the appellant. Hence, the appellant instituted a suit so as to seek declaration that the impugned notice as well as impugned decisions dated 21st February, 2003 and 21st March, 2003 respectively are illegal. 2. This was done by filing a suit in the City Civil Court being L.C. Suit No.2074 of 2005. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court tried the said suit and by judgment and decree dated 17th December, 2008 dismissed the said suit. Hence, the first appeal. 3. I have extensively heard learned advocate Mr.D.Dwivedi for the appellant and Mr.Xavier for the Corporation. It is true that the respondents did not file written statement and no evidence was placed before the Court on behalf of the respondents. It is to be noted that the appellant in the course of his evidence, admitted that there are two structures. One structure where business is carried out in the structure and little away from the said suit structure there is another structure which is used by the appellant for residential purpose. It is admitted by the appellant that the impugned notice pertains to the business premises. ( 3 ) 4. Before this Court an effort was made by the learned advocate for the appellant to point out that the documents relied upon by the appellant show that the suit structure is in existence prior to 1st January, 1995. The said attempt has failed in as much as whatsoever documents which are placed before the Court show that a structure in existence prior to 1st January, 1995 relate to the residential structure and not for business structure. The shops and establishment license secured by the appellant pertains to the suit structure is after 1st January, 1995. 5. In substance, the appellant has not been able to make out the case that the structure is in existence prior to 1st January, 1995. If this is the position, the final decision arrived at by the Corporation as well as dismissal of the suit by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court cannot be faulted. If the appellant has not been able to make out the case that the structure was in existence prior to 1st January, 1995, the final decision arrived at by the Corporation as well as learned trial Judge are correct and no interference is required therein. Hence, the first appeal is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the following order. ( 4 ) ORDER ORDER ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. . In view of the above, Civil Application No.333 of 2009 is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)