- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM No. 1128 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1383 OF 2008 Sandeep N. Patlekar ... Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Krishna Kore, for the appellant. Mr. M. K. Soraan, for respondent No.1. Mr. R. A. Thorat, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 9, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The appellant who is original plaintiff, has filed L. C. Suit No. 466 of 2006, challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.1 under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The appellant has also filed an application at Exhibit 5, for restraining the respondent No.1 from implementing the notice under section 351 of the Act. The said application came to be dismissed and therefore, the present appeal. - 2 - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the notice structure is in existence, prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1st January 1995, and therefore, protection is required to be granted, in pursuance of the policy of the respondent No.1 Corporation. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on the contrary, pointed out that suit premises was demolished twice after following due process of law on 1st of October 1998 and 22nd March 2005 and thereafter the appellant has again reconstructed the present notice structure. The fact that the suit premises were demolished earlier twice, is not specifically denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact the reply given by the appellant on 18th July 2005 to the Assistant Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation, which is annexed at Exhibit “I”, at page 63 shows that the premises were demolished earlier. There is no dispute that the applicant did not challenge earlier action of demolition of said structure. In these facts and circumstances, the suit premises/suit structure cannot be said to be in existence prior to 1st January 1995 and therefore, protection cannot be granted. 3. The learned Judge after going through the documentary evidence led by the appellant, recorded the finding that the suit structure is re- constructed after demolition of the earlier structure. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Judge, so as to enable me to interfere in the - 3 - impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any substance, and same is accordingly dismissed. 4. In the interest of justice however, trial of the suit being L.C. Suit No. 466 of 2006 is expedited. 5. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No. 1383 of 2008 does not survive for consideration, which is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]