gst 1 ao84.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 84 OF 2011. M/s.Modi Motors Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ... .... ...Appellant. V/s The Mun. Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai... ... ..Respondent. Mr.J.J.Shah, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 25th Jan., 2011. PC: Admit. It is made clear that pendency of appeal shall not come in the way of learned trial Court in proceeding with the suit and that the said suit shall be decided on its own merits. It is further clarified that pendnecy of the present proceedings would also not come in the way of present appellant in applying for regularisation of the structure and if such an application is made before the Competent Authority same shall be considered in accordance with law. gst 2 ao84.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 84 OF 2011. M/s.Modi Motors Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ... .... ...Appellant. V/s The Mun. Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai... ... ..Respondent. Mr.J.J.Shah, Adv. For the appellant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 25th Jan., 2011. PC: By way of present application the applicant is seeking an order of temporary injunction during pendency of the appeal. 2. It is the contention of the applicant that the structure for which the notice has been issued is in existence prior to 1978 which would be seen from the assessment year. It is further submitted that the applicant occupied the said premises as tenant in the year 1999 and subsequently agreed to purchase the same in the year 2004. It is submitted that agreement for sale would itself reveal that the suit structure is in existence prior to applicants being put in possession thereof. 3. It is basic contention of the respondent-Corporation that the applicant has not shown any sanctioned plan to show that the said structure is authorised. Learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M.Lodha as he then was) while considering Appeal from Order No.712/ has observed thus: “In this background, if the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner has rejected the reasons given by the notice-original plaintiff on the ground that he has not submitted any documents to prove the existence of the alleged unauthorized structures prior to 1.4.1962. The order passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner apparently and gst 3 ao84.11.sxw on its face is mechanical and without application of mind to the reasons shown in the reply. The specific case set out by the notice in the reply was that he was tenant in room No.1 situate on the first floor of a building at 3/8, Ripon Cross Lane, and that the tenancy had began about 4 years back. How can a tenant who has been inducted somewhere in the year 1987-88 could produce any document to show the existence of the disputed structure prior to 1962. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner has not all adverted to this vital statement made in the reply by the notice-original plaintiff and has not given any finding believing or disbelieving the the stand taken by the notice that he was tenant of room No.1 situate on the first floor before 4 years of issuance of notice.” 4. I find that the present case is covered by the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. In that view of the matter civil application is allowed. Ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) shall operate during pendency of appeal/suit which ever is decided earlier.