1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.42 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2010 M/s.Metro Shoes Limited )..Appellants Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )..Respondent ---- Mr. R. A. Thorat i/by Bipin Joshi for the appellants. Mr.J.J.Xavier for the respondent/BMC. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 18th January, 2010 PC 1 Heard both sides. On perusing the record and particularly the agency agreement, it is clear that the present plaintiff is not the owner of the premises. It is not the case of the BMC that he was undertaking the offending work as the said work has already been completed. The contention of the BMC is that owner of the shop was also served with the notice under Section 351 of BMC Act and the final order was passed. In so far as present plaintiff is concerned, he is not the owner and his own agency agreement indicates that owner will be deemed to be in possession. In the circumstances, in my view, the correct person to challenge the action under Section 351 notice would be the owner of the premises where the alleged unauthorised work had been carried on. In view of this observation, Advocate for the appellant does not press this appeal and seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. Appeal is disposed off as withdrawn. It is directed that the BMC will 2 not carry out any demolition of the alleged unauthorised work for a period of 8 weeks to enable the owner to give notice under Section 527. It is made clear that any proceedings taken by the owner will be decided on its own merits. Appeal stands disposed off as withdrawn. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2010 1 As the main appeal is disposed off as withdrawn, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3