: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.954 OF 2009 Rajiv Champaklal Vora .. Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Respondent ..... Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis for the appellant Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the respondent-BMC ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Corporation issued Notice under Section 351 to the father appellant alleging therein that a structure with brick masonary walls and AC Sheet is constructed by him. This notice was issued in June, 1997. A reply was filed in July, 1997 and the learned Deputy Municipal Commissioner passed an order dated 11 th October, 2001 observing that : 2 : the suit structure is not authorized. The Corporation directed that the suit structure should be removed. 2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Corporation, the appellant instituted L.C. Suit No.5700 of 2001 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The said suit was tried by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court and by judgment and decree dated 17 th April,2009 the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissed the said suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 17 th April, 2009, this first appeal has been filed. The appellant s father filed the suit challenging the said decision. It is noted that during the pendency of the said suit, father of the appellant expired and hence appellant was brought on record. After the decision in the suit the appellant has filed the present first appeal. 3. At the stage of admission of the first appeal in the midst of arguments, learned advocate Mr. Godbole upon instructions from the appellant who is present in the Court submitted that the : 3 : appellant is interested in applying for regularization of the said suit structure by submitting regular proposal for regularization through an Architect. He, therefore, submitted that some reasonable time be given to the appellant to submit such proposal and order be passed so as to protect the interest of the appellant while the application for regularization is pending. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mahadik submitted that the suit structure is undoubtedly unauthorized and the learned Judge of the City Civil Court arrived at proper conclusion and as such first appeal is required to be dismissed. 5. Since the appellant wants to make an application for regularization, the Court cannot stop him from doing so and as a result of that first appeal is required to be disposed of by passing following order. : 4 : ORDER . The appellant is at liberty to file the regular proposal for regularization in regard to the suit structure. The said proposal should be submitted through the registered Architect. The appellant if wants to file a proposal, he should do so on or before 31 st August, 2009. The said proposal should be submitted in the office of Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal, City having his office at Byculla, Bombay. If such a proposal is filed on or before 31 st August, 2009, the Corporation shall consider the said proposal on merits and shall communicate the decision to the appellant and to the Architect of the appellant. During the time when the proposal is being considered by the Corporation, the Corporation shall not demolish the suit structure. . If the Corporation comes to the conclusion that the proposal for regularization cannot be granted, the Corporation shall inform the appellant its decision and the Corporation shall not demolish the structure for a period of 5 weeks from the date of service of the said communication upon the appellant or his Architect whichever is earlier. If the appellant fails to furnish his proposal on or before 31 st August, : 5 : 2009, it will be taken that the appellant is not interested in submitting such proposal and in that case the judgment delivered by the learned Judge, City Civil Court on 17 th April, 2009 shall stand confirmed without any further order from this Court. If proposal is not submitted on or before 31 st August, 2009, the Corporation is free to demolish the suit structure on or after 1 st September, 2009. No views are expressed on the merits of the matter as regards the question of regularization of the said structure. . The first appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. . Additional compilation filed by the learned advocate Mr. Godbole is taken on record. . Civil Application No.2731 of 2009 is disposed of in view of the order in the first appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)