: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.561 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1333 OF 2010 Kaushal Kumar Parasnath Singh .. Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondents Mr. R.D. Mishra for the Appellant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 27 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The present First Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 24th February, 2010, passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in L.C. Suit No.6073 of 2004. 2. A notice was issued to the appellant-plaintiff under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act directing him to remove the suit structure within 48 hours. The plaintiff has challenged this notice by filing the L.C. Suit No. 6073 of 2004 before the City Civil Court, Bombay. : 2 : 3. Several contentions were raised by the plaintiff in his plaint, inter alia (i). that the suit structure was situated on private land; (ii).that it was situated in an area declared a Slum and, therefore, the suit structure was tolerated in accordance with the Government Policy. (iii).that the structure was not on a public road and therefore the notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is bad. (iv).that the structure is in existence prior to 1995 and is therefore a tolerated structure. 4. All these issues have been considered by the trial Court and the trial Court has found that the plaintiff was not able to establish a single one of : 3 : his contentions. The trial Court has found that the notice issued to the plaintiff under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was valid and that the plaintiff was not entitled to accommodation as his structure was not authorized. The trial Court has found from the documents produced on record by the plaintiff that the structure which was being used for commercial purposes had not been constructed prior to the datum line, i.e. 1st April, 1962, and has therefore dismissed the Suit. 5. Several contentions were raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff based on the compilation of documents produced before the trial Court. 6. On a perusal of these documents including the document under which the plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit structure, in my opinion, the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for setting aside the notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Apart from this, : 4 : the learned Advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the licnese issued to the plaintiff in 2004 under Sections 394 and 412-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. He further draws my attention to the admission of the witness of the respondent-Municipal Corporation before the trial Court that licenses are not issued under the aforesaid Sections unless the structure is authorized. On a perusal of the license, it appears that it has been issued without prejudice to the rights of the respondent-Municipal Corporation to take action against the premises in case they are not authorized and the licence does not grant the status of an authorized structure to the suit premises. 7. In my view, the trial Court has considered the documents produced. The appreciation of the evidence on record by the trial Court cannot be faulted. No case for interference has been made out. The First Appeal is dismissed. : 5 : 8. On the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, the suit structure shall not be demolished for a period of four weeks from today. 9. In view of the above, Civil Application No.1333 of 2010 pending in the First Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.