:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4212 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4212 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4212 OF 2008 IN IN IN FIRST APPEAL FIRST APPEAL FIRST APPEAL NO.1628 OF 200 NO.1628 OF 200 NO.1628 OF 2008 Ashraf Vali Mohammed ...Applicant. v. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay ...Respondents. Ms.J.P.Thakkar , adv. for the Applicant. Mr.J.J.Xavier , adv. for the Respondent/BMC. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice dated 24-4-2000 to the owners, occupiers and tenants of the fifth floor of the building situated at 88/90 Sarang Street, Bombay that fifth floor of the building is illegal construction. By this notice, they were called upon to show cause why the fifth floor of the building should not be demolished. After service of that notice, the present plaintiff/applicant filed regular civil suit no.3147 of 2000 challenging that notice. According to him, the structure is very old and in any case, it is in existence since 1961-62 and, therefore, it should be protected. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court. By this application, the applicant seeks stay to the :2: execution of that notice as well as the judgment of the trial Court. Even though the appeal is admitted and even though the learned counsel for the applicant has argued atleast for about half an hour, she could not point out a single document to show that fifth floor of the building was in existence since prior to 1961-62 and that it is legally protected. The first document about the existence of 5th floor is conveyance deed of 1993 in which there is reference to the fifth floor and occupation of the plaintiff’s father. Prior to that there is no document nor any previous conveyance deed where there is reference of fifth floor. The learned counsel could not point out any previous conveyance deed, Tenancy agreement, assessment order or any sanction plan about the construction of fifth floor of that building. Therefore, I do not find any reason to grant any interim relief in the matter. 3. Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)