1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 146 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 146 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 146 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 679 OF 2007 Mr. Shrenik V. Shah ... Plaintiff Vs. Municipal Corporatino of Greater Mumbai. Defendants Mr. A.M.Saraogi, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advopcate, for the B.M.C. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 17th April,2008. DATE: 17th April,2008. DATE: 17th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff 2 against the rejection of the prayer for ad-interim relief restraining the Municipal Corporation from acting upon the notice issued on 17.11.2006 under Section 354A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that as per the said notice, it was alleged by the Municipal Corporation that the plaintiff was carrying on unlawful construction of mezzanine floor with ladi coba slab and AC sheet roof. Immediately after receiving this notice, the plaintiff had replied on 18.1.2006 pointing out that the mezzanine floor was part of the factory which is in existence for about 50 years. As it was in a dilapidated condition, he had renovated it for which he had not obtained necessary permission. He also admitted in that reply that originally, the height of the mezzanine floor was 8-1/2 feet, but in renovation the height was raised to 9 feet. It means he admitted that the height was raised by 1/2’ over and above the original height. In support of this, he also submitted necessary documents. To that a reply dated 2.12.2006 was issued by the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation wherein he admitted that the mezzanine floor was assessed to Municipal taxes in the year 1996-97. According to him, as there was nothing to show that it was in existence since prior to 1961-62, it was required to be demolished. It is an admitted fact that as per the notification dated 3.8.2000 issued by the Municipal 3 Corporation, the mezzanine floors constructed prior to 15.8.1997 are protected. If it is so, in view of the admission in the letter dated 2.12.2006 from the Municipal Corporation, the mezzanine floor was protected because it was in existence and it was also assessed to Municipal taxes in the year 1996-97. In view of this, prima facie, it appears that the Municipal Corporation could not act upon notice dated 17.11.2006 in respect of the mezzanine floor which was already in existence at least to the extent of its original height of 8-1/2’. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the said structure was demolished and thereafter the plaintiff had made new construction vertically. She also pointed out that the construction was in violation of the status quo order passed by this Court on 27.4.2007 and for the breach of that order, the Municipal Corporation has already filed a Contempt Petition. It is not necessary to deal with the allegations made in the Contempt Petition. However, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out from the report dated 15.12.2007 from the Assistant Engineer that the vertical extension was demolished on 14.12.2006, but the mezzanine floor was not demolished as it becomes roof of the structure and also the factory is running under the same. 5. In view of these circumstances, in my considered 4 opinion, the status quo in respect of the mezzanine floor which was referred to in the notice dated 17.11.2006 needs to be protected till the Notice of Motion is finally decided after hearing the parties. It is pointed out by Mr. Saraogi, learned Counsel for the appellant that even though the impugned order was passed on 17.2.2007, the Municipal Corporation has not bothered to file reply to the Notice of Motion so far. If it is so, the Municipal Corporation shall file reply to the Notice of Motion within two weeks from this day and the trial Court shall hear and dispose of the Notice of Motion within six weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the mezzanine floor as referred to in the notice dated 17.11.2006. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 6. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)