IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 619 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 619 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 619 OF 2008 Mr.Shankar Eknath Bobde. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another. ... Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 620 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 620 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 620 OF 2008 Mrs.Surekha Manohar Morye. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 621 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 621 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 621 OF 2008 Mrs.Lutfunisa Ahmed. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 622 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 622 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 622 OF 2008 Mr.Arvind Keshav Padwal. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another. ... Respondents. WITH Kishor Jain i/b. Mr.Tushar Garodia and Ms.Nisha Parmar for the appellant. Ms.Geeta Joglekar for respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 16th July 2008. DATED: 16th July 2008. DATED: 16th July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. The photographs, which were summoned by this Court from the City Civil Court, Mumbai, if compared with the photographs available on record, they clearly demonstrate unauthorised construction carried out by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not produced anything on record to show in what capacity he is occupying the said premises. The plaintiff though claims to be the tenant, but no rent receipts are produced on record. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Court below cannot be faulted. 3. The appeal from order is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. 4. The Registrar General is directed to remit back the photographs received from the City Civil Court, Mumbai. 5. The prayer made by the appellant for continuation of the interim relief is rejected. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)