IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.860 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1031 OF 2008 Mr. Baburao Malhar Nakhawa .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondent Mumbai Mr. A.M. Saraogi for Appellant. Mr. A.K. Nandanwar for M.M.C. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 26th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order is preferred against the denial of ad-interim reliefs to the appellant. Notice of the appeal has been given to the respondent- Corporation. 2. On 30th May, 2008, the appellant was served with notice under Section 354-A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act alleging that he had undertaken construction of first floor with EM-wall and ladi coba slab admeasuring 20'.4”x 12' at 32-E located at Shriram Lane, Worli, Koliwada. This notice was challenged by the appellant by filing a suit being S.C. Suit No. 1231 of 2008. The appellant could not succeed in getting ad-interim order on the application filed in that suit. Therefore, he preferred an Appeal being Appeal from (2) order No.556 of 2008 to this Court. When the Appeal was taken up for admission, the Court was informed that the Assistant Municipal Commissioner had passed final order dated 4th June,2008 on the notice. Consequently the Appeal from Order and the Suit did not survive. Therefore, by the order dated 19th June,2008, both were dismissed. Thereafter the appellant has filed L.C.Suit No.1468 of 2008 to challenge the notice under Section 354(A) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act as well as the order passed thereon. 3. The order of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner dated 4th June 2008 indicates that the appellant had carried out work of construction of the first floor of the same dimensions in the past also. He had been served with notice for that work and pursuant to that notice, the ongoing work of construction of first floor had been demolished. Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the appellant submits across the bar that no such notice was served thereon and no action of demolition had been taken in the year 2007. 4. It is stated by the appellant that the first floor was in existence since last many years and therefore the notice issued under Section 354(A) for (3) the construction of the first floor is mis-conceived. The appellant relies upon the Municipal assessment bills in order to establish the existence of the structure. The Municipal assessment bills produced gives description of appellant's structure as that chawl of four rooms. It does not give any idea as to existence of the first floor of the structure. According to the reply dated 2nd June,2008 sent by the appellant to the impugned notice, his premises consist of ground plus mezzanine floor. There is no first floor referred to as being in existence at any time. In the light of these facts, it cannot be said that learned Bombay City Civil Court has erred in refusing ad- interim reliefs to the Appellant. In any case, the appellant's application for interim relief is still pending. 5. The Appeal from order is dismissed in limine. 6. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive, hence it is accordingly dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)