: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 868 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION EXHIBIT -2 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 1905 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1040 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 868 OF 2008 M/s.Kailash Parbat Hindu Hotel and anr. .......Appellants Verus The Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. ........Respondents Mr.J.Reis i/by. Yadunath Chaudhari, adv. for appellants. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. r. Shiraz Rustomji with Mr.G.V.Aiman for First Pasta Lane Residents Association- Intervenor. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 8 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the order dated 13th : 2 : August, 2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court refusing ad-interim reliefs to restrain the Mumbai Municipal Corporation inter-alia from interfering with the appellants possession of the suit premises i.e. structure situate at C.S.No.359, First Pasta Lane, Colaba without following due process of law. The other interim relief sought by the appellants was to restrain the Corporation from taking further steps pursuant to the order dated 19th July 2008, of the Competent Authority. 2. By virtue of the award dated 16th May, 1964 passed under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mumbai Municipal Corporation acquired land at C.S.No. 337, C.S.No.358 and C.S.No.359 owned by one James Hallowaen for the purpose of recreation ground as per the sanctioned development plan. At that time on C.S.No.359 there existed a tin shed admeasuring 29' x 107' x 10' constructed by one Ranbaria Singh, tenant of James Hallowaen. This structure had been sublet by Ranbaria Singh to appellant no.2. Appellant no.2 is one of the partners of appellant no.1 firm which carries on hotelling business. C.S.No.337 had an A.C.shelter and C.S.No.358 had a structure consisting of ground floor and part actic floor unauthorisedly constructed by one Mohammed Shafiq Rahim Khan. Notice of the acquisition proceedings had been served upon appellant no.1 which chose not to appear before the acquisition officer. After acquisition of the three pieces of land, Mumbai Municipal Corporation instead of : 3 : developing the land into a recreation ground, handed the same over to appellant no.2 on leave and license basis on monthly fees of Rs.1910,80/-. The agreement of tenament executed by appellant no.2 shows that it gives a right to Mumbai Municipal Corporation to terminate the license at any time by giving one weeks prior notice in writing. The appellants agreed to vacate the tenament and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the Corporation as and when required for development upon service of three days notice in writing. Alongwith execution of the agreement of tenament, appellant no.2 signed an Undertaking stating that he would vacate the aforesaid premises as and when required by the Corporation for development purpose without claiming any compensation, loss of business and alternate accommodation. Since the appellants were to use the premises for hotelling business, they were issued licenses under Section 394 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Over the period of time, the structure of tin shed on C.S.No.359 has been converted into a brick masonry structure consisting of ground plus first floor and the structure of ground floor with part actic floor on C.S.No. 358 has been extended to a structure consisting of ground plus two upper floors. 3. The First Pasta Lane Residents Association, the Intervenor herein had filed Writ Petition No. 53 of 2007, agitating for its right of having a recreation ground in the locality. The parties to the writ petition including the appellants : 4 : (who were respondent no.9) agreed that the competent authority of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall hear the appellants and the Association and pass an appropriate order on the application for renewal as well as revocation of the license given to the appellants. The Writ Petition came to be disposed off by the order dated 28th January, 2008 in terms of the agreement arrived at. Accordingly, the competent authority of the Corporation i.e. the Assistant Municipal Commissioner gave a hearing to both the parties on 9th April, 2008 and 21st May, 2008. The parties were also allowed to produce documents in support of their respective claims. The competent authority passed its order dated 19th July, 2008 observing that the present structures standing on the three plots of land, have been constructed without following the D.C. Regulations, thereby violating the building norms, open space etc. It has further observed that the appellant has not observed the safety measures essential for industrial kind of kitchen. The unauthorised work carried out by the appellant is not tolerable in nature. With these and several other observations, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner passed an order directing that an intimation be issued to the occupants to vacate the three properties immediately as per the Undertaking given by the appellants and terminate the license agreement. Pursuant to the order, the respondent corporation by its intimation dated 12th August, 2008 has revoked the license under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in respect of property of C.S.No. 358 and C.S.No. : 5 : 359. The court is informed that similarly a notice to vacate the premises is also being issued to the appellants. It is this action of the respondent which is being stalled by the appellants by filing the present proceedings. In the face of the above facts, on a prima-facie view there can be an interim relief neither in respect of the premises nor the licenses. 4. Mr.Reis, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to draw distinction between renewal of a license and revocation of license. He submits that the appellants had made an application for renewal of license in the year 2006 which was also for consideration of the Appropriate Authority. He refers to the violations of the terms and conditions of the license noted by the Appropriate Authority in his order and submits that the alleged violations are minor in nature and the same can be rectified. According to him, strict application of mind is required to be exercised only at the stage of grant of license in the first place and not at the time of renewal, since that kind of application of mind is already exercised once. It is difficult to appreciate the submission. In my opinion, whether the application is for renewal of the license or for grant or for revocation, there cannot be any difference in the degree of application of mind. May be, the considerations for the orders to be passed on the applications would be different. In the instant case, not only are there violations of the terms and : 6 : conditions of the license under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, as noted by the Appropriate Authority in his order but the appellants have also lost their right to continue to occupy the three premises for which a temporary license had been given to them. Since the license to occupy the property itself has come to an end, there is no question of renewal of license under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned order. The Appeal from order is dismissed in limine with costs. 5. With the dismissal of the Appeal from order, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]