1 ao584-11 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.584 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1154 OF 2011 IN L.C. SUIT NO.1184 OF 2011 Aftab Ishtiyaq Iraqui ..Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr. B.P. Shukla for appellant. Ms. K.K. Soran for respondent. CORAM : SMT. R.S. DALVI, J. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1. This appeal challenges the order refusing ad-interim injunction by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in the Suit of the appellant on 27/5/2011. The appellant has been issued notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (BMC) for the horizontal extension of the existing structure of the appellant. The notice shows the precise extension of Hotel “Jhakas”. Whatever be the structure of hotel “Jakas”, it seems to be within the shop line. The extension has been shown along with its measurement and description. 2. The appellant contends that this extension has been assessed. The appellant has relied upon the assessment of the year 2 ao584-11 2008-09. The structure is in slum. The structure appears to be from 2009. The construction of 2009 cannot be protected. The appellant’s counsel has shown me the assessment of the structure GN-6153(3A) of 1994-95. The assessment extract shows tiled house as Godown No. 6150(3) and tiled house as godown No.6153(3A). It is for the appellant to explain that this constructed structure is the extension and not part of the hotel “Jakas” which is within the shop line. 3. The appellant contends that the impugned order shows incorrect measurement of the structure. That may be so. However, the impugned order has also considered the appellant’s case. The order concludes that the documents of the appellant themselves indicate that the premises occupied by him are more than one mentioned in the assessment extract relied upon by the appellant and, therefore, the structure cannot be protected. That is precisely the conclusion that this Court would come to upon seeing the appellant’s documents. 4. The appellant having not shown that the precise structure under the notice was in existence prior to 1/1/1995 it cannot be protected. The order is correct. The appeal is dismissed. 5. The application for continuing the ad-interim relief is rejected no relief as of today is shown. (SMT. R.S. DALVI, J)