1 fa1681-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO. 1681 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4239 OF 2010 Chandiram T. Mulchandani since deceased through his LR .. Appellant Ramchandra Chandiram V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai – 01 .. Respondents & Anr. .... Mr. S.P. Kanuga i/b. Smt. Spna N. Nath for the for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for respondent no.1- BMC. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff. The suit is filed by the appellant for challenging notice dated 3rd August, 2000, under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), and order passed thereon of demolition. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 fa1681-10 appellant on instructions of the appellant states that the challenge in the appeal is confined to that part of the notice dated 3rd August, 2000, and order passed thereon which alleges unauthorized construction of loft in the kitchen. He states that he is not pressing the Appeal to the extent to which the challenge is to the order of demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction of a shed admasuring 8.6 meters by 3.70 meters with G.I. Sheet roof, M.S. Pipe frame and construction of chullah in the open space of the building. As regards the said part, the appellant desires to apply for regularization. He states that an undertaking will be filed by the appellant to that effect during the course of the day stating that application for regularization will be made within a period of 12 weeks from today. He submits that till the regularization application is decided, that part of the structure be protected. 3. In view of this submission, the challenge in the appeal is confined only to the second part of the notice dated 3rd August, 2000, and the order of demolition regarding unauthorized construction of loft in the kitchen. Hence, I pass the following order : 3 fa1681-10 :: O R D E R :: i. The Appeal is admitted to that extent. The Appeal in so far as it relates to the other part of the notice dated 3rd August, 2000 stands dismissed with liberty to the appellant to apply for regularization. Private paper book shall be filed within a period of one year failing which the Appeal shall stand dismissed. Respondent No.1 waives service. ii. If an application for regularization is made by the appellant as per rules to the concerned Executive Engineer, Building Proposals within a period of 12 weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the application is made. iii. In the event, application for regularization is made within a period of 12 weeks from today, status- 4 fa1681-10 quo as of today as regards the shed and chullah shall be maintained by both the parties till the disposal of the application for regularization. iv. In the event, the application for regularization is rejected, the order of status-quo will continue to operate for a period of four weeks from the date on which communication of the order of rejection is made to the appellant. v. Till the disposal of the Appeal, no steps shall be taken for demolition of the loft in the kitchen which is subject matter of the notice dated 3rd August, 2000. vi. In view of this order, Civil Application No.4239 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE