1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NOs. 925 AND 926 OF 2009 Narendra Jainarayan Sharma ... Appellant v/s Municipal Corpn. Gr. Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents Mr.P.G.Lad for the appellant. Mr.J.J.Xavier for the Resp. No.1 Corporation Mr.V.Y. Sanglikar for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 28TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C.: 1. These two first appeals challenge the orders passed by the City Civil Court in Long Cause Suit No.172 of 2007 and Long Cause Suit No.171 of 2007. Since the facts involved in these two cases are the same, the appeals have been heard together. 2 2. The main contention of the appellant in both the cases is that the suits of the appellant have wrongly been dismissed. According to the appellant, the notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s Act are illegal. These notices were issued to the appellant since he had constructed a wooden loft and had extended the existing shop with a brick masonry wall. The third illegality alleged by the Corporation is that plastic sheets were used by the appellant to erect sheds, illegally. 3. During the pendency of these appeals, the appellant has removed the plastic sheds. An affidavit has been filed by Mr.B.S.Kulkarni, Assistant Engineer (Building & Factory) G/S Ward Office, in which he has stated that Item 3 of the notice i.e. the plastic sheds have been removed by the appellant pursuant to the statement made before this Court on 17.7.2009. Thus today what is to be considered is only, whether there is an illegality committed by the appellant by constructing the wooden loft and extending the existing shop with a brick masonry wall. 4. I have, with the assistance of the advocates appearing for both parties, perused the evidence on record. The appellant has voluntarily stated in the cross-examination that 3 he had applied for regularization of the unauthorized construction, namely, the wooden loft in view of the policy of the Corporation to legalize such construction. However, the pleading proceeds on the footing that the loft and the brick and masonry were in existence when predecessors of the appellant came into possession of these shops from the landlord. It is on this basis that the appellant contends that these constructions were authorized. 5. However, the appellant was unable to show any documentary evidence indicating that such constructions were authorized. The landlord was examined. He has stated that the open space at the rear of the structures has been enclosed by the appellant without his permission and without any permission from the Corporation. The City Civil Court has accepted the contention of the respondent Corporation and the landlord and has disbelieved the evidence of the appellant. 6. On perusing the evidence I do not find that the Trial Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit. This is because there is no evidence at all on record to indicate that either the Corporation or the landlord had permitted the appellant to enclose the open space at the rear of the shop 4 and, therefore, the suit construction is obviously illegal. Apart from this, there is no evidence at all to indicate that the lofts were in existence when the appellant purchased the shops or that it was constructed with permission of the Corporation. 7. In my view, therefore, there is no need to admit the appeals. 8. Appeals dismissed. 9. Since the appeals are dismissed, the Civil applications in both the appeals become infructuous and stand dismissed. ..... 5