1 5 ao 980.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 980 OF 2010 Arjun Bijalbhai Algotar ..Appellant. v/s. The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai ..Respondent. .... Ms. Anita R.Dwivedi i/b Dr.Pawan K. Pandey & Associates for the Appellant. Ms. V.S.Gharpure for the Respondent/BMC. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 31ST AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2 The Plaintiff/Appellant who runs a business of milk in the shop no.8 in Atul Towers, had also purchased parking space no.6 in 'B' Wing and a parking space in 'C" Wing of that building from the Builder and Developer M/s. Atul Development Corporation in the year 1993. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 04.07.2009 under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and 2 5 ao 980.10.doc Town Planning Act, pointing out that the Appellant had raised illegal enclosure of stilt portion with grills beyond the approved plan as shown in the map. That order was challenged in the Suit no.1497 of 2009 in which Notice of Motion No. 955 of 2009 was taken out by the Plaintiff/Appellant for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation for demolishing the structure. The trial court after hearing the parties rejected the Notice of Motion. 3 The Plaintiff is admittedly not residing in the Atul Towers but has only his business of milk in one of the shops in that building. However, he had purchased two car parkings. After taking instructions from the Plaintiff/Appellant, learned counsel makes a statement that the Plaintiff does not own even a single car but he has a scooter with one attachment having a wheel and five bicycles used by the employees for the purpose of supply of milk to the customers. According to the reply of the Municipal Corporation grill was raised to enclose the parkings without permission. Admittedly, no permission has been taken from the Municipal Corporation. According to the Plaintiff, he had taken permission from the Builder while purchasing two parkings. From the facts it appears that said two parkings are not being used for 3 5 ao 980.10.doc the purpose of parking but prima facie they are being used for commercial purposes. The grill has been raised to enclose the same for that purpose. In view of this, I find no substance in the present Appeal. 4 Therefore, the Appeal from Order stands dismissed. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]