1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2395 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5011 OF 2008 Mr.Haroon Ibrahim Halai ..... Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of ..... Respondents Greater Mumbai & Anr. Mr.Chiraj Shah i/by J.J. Shah, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Vinod Mahadik, Advocate for MCGM-respondents Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 6th July 2009. PC : 1. This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24th June 2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil Sessions Court at Mumbai in Long Cause Suit No.5209 of 2003. Respondents to the appeal are the original defendants i.e. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Assistant Municipal Commissioner, L-Ward, Mumbai. 2. The appellant was issued notice dated 29th September 2003 under Section 351 of Mumbai Muncipal Corporation Act alleging that the suit structure is unauthorised. After considering his reply to the notice, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner passed his order dated 29th October 2003 holding that the appellant had failed to establish that the structure is an authorised structure and directed it’s demolition. The appellant then filed the instant suit to challenge the notice as well as the final order thereon. During the pendency 2 of the suit as the appellant was unable to get interim relief for protection of the disputed structure, the Bombay Municipal Corporation demolished the same on 30th September 2004. Thereafter the appellant amended the plaint to challenge the action of demolition of the structure and to seek prayer for reconstruction of the structure. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant’s suit came to be dismissed by the Bombay City Civil Court holding that the appellant had failed to establish that the disputed structure is an authorised structure. 3. The appellant during the course of the trial, produced the Certificate issued under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act in the year 1988, electricity bills for March 1992, November 1994 and December 1997 and order passed by Additional Tahsildar dated 1st November 1994 imposing non agricultural assessment on the property. He also produced demand notice issued by Telephone Nigam in respect of payment of telephone bills. The learned Judge, considered these documents and has rightly held that none of the documents established that the suit structure is an authorised structure. The appellant claims to be the tenant in respect of the structure. The learned trial Judge has observed that the appellant could have examined the landlord to show that the disputed structure is an authorised structure. The appellant has neither examined landlord nor any independent witness for the purpose. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai Municipal Corporation had also considered all the documents produced by the appellant before him 3 and passed the speaking order making reference to all the documents that the same did not prove that the disputed structure is an authorised structure. The scope of challenge to such final order is very united. The scope is limited to finding out whether the order suffers from mala-fides, non application of mind, or non consideration of the material produced. None of these defects are found in the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 4. As regards the complaint of the appellant about the demolition of the disputed structure, since the impugned notice and the order passed thereon has been upheld by the trial Court, there cannot be any relief of reconstruction in favour of the appellant. I have gone through the pleadings, the evidence led by the appellant in respect of his claim and the documents relied upon him. It is thus clear that this appeal does not raise any questions of fact and law which call for a full dressed hearing. In the circumstances, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. In view of dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.5011 of 2008 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed off. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J.)