1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1380 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3776 OF 2009 Arunkumar Virendrakumar Thakur ..... Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of ..... Respondent Greater Mumbai Mr.J.V. Parmar, Advocate for appellant. Mr.J.J. Xavier, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 11th November, 2009. PC : 1. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellant to challenge the judgment and order dated 20th July 2009 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in L.C. Suit No.4047 of 2002. Considering the nature of the suit and the evidence produced by the parties, the production of records and proceedings is dispensed with and the appeal is taken up for hearing immediately. Heard the extensive submissions of both the Advocates on the appeal. 2. The respondent-Municipal Corporation issued notice dated 14th September 2001 bearing No.C/BFIV/351/716/2001-2002 under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant alleging that he had carried out unauthorised construction of “mezzanine 2 floor in staircase floor admeasuring 11’ x 7’ built up of ladi coba flooring and M.S. angle framework and unauthorised erection of room admeasuring 13’6” x 4’ and height 6’9” x 6’.3” built up of brick walls and covered with A.C. sheet roof” at 4 th floor of Moti Bhavan building and called upon him to show cause as to why the same should not be demolished. The appellant replied the notice by his letter dated 21st September 2001 denying that he has carried out any unauthorised work as alleged in the notice and contending that both the structures have been in existence since prior to the year 1950. In support of his case, he produced assessment extract in respect of property bearing structure No.C Ward No.4465-4470 of the year 1997-1998. He also produced rent receipts in respect of his residential premises and some photographs of the disputed structures. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner considered the documents and held that the appellant had failed to establish authorisation of the disputed structures either by production of sanctioned municipal plans for construction thereof or by establishing their existence since prior to the datum line of 17th April 1964. As regards the assessment extract, he observed that the disputed structure of mezzanine floor is not at all assessed for municipal taxes and the room in the terrace is assessed only from the year 1996-1997. 3. Mr.Parmar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that younger brother of the grand father of the appellant was inducted 3 as a tenant in room No.26 on the 4th floor of Moti Bhavan building since prior to the year 1950. The appellant himself has been residing in the tenanted premises since the year 1950. At the inception of tenancy, room No.26 consisted of three rooms with one entrance. The appellant has been using two of the rooms along with the disputed structure of mezzanine floor. He has also been using the disputed structure of stall for the storage purposes. 4. Admittedly the only evidence produced by the appellant in order to show authorisation of the disputed structures is the assessment extract of the year 1997-1998. This extract firstly does not even refer to the mezzanine floor above the staircase and therefore can be of no help to the appellant to show its existence since prior to the datum line. As regards the other structure, the assessment extract shows its existence only from the year 1996-1997 and not since the year 1950 as claimed by the appellant. In these circumstances, the learned Judge has rightly concluded that there is no evidence of authorisation of the disputed structures and dismissed the suit. 5. It is also to be noted that at the time of the trial, the appellant had produced an application made by him for regularisation of the suit structures (Exhibit 13) thereby conceding that the suit structures are unauthorised. In these circumstances,there is no controversy whatsoever arising for 4 consideration of this Court in the appeal. It is well established that the challenge to the order passed by Assistant Municipal Commissioner under Section 351, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is in the Civil Court is limited. Such order of Assistant Municipal Commissioner is a quasi judicial order. The scrutiny of such an order by the Civil Court is limited to finding out whether the order suffers either from non application of mind or lack of hearing or malafides. If the order exhibits that Assistant Municipal Commissioner has granted hearing to receiver of notice by giving him an opportunity to file reply and tender documents in support of his stand, considered the documents and passed a speaking order, there can be no interference by the Civil Court with the order. It is seen that the order passed by Assistant Municipal Commissioner in the instant case does not suffer from any of the above three infirmities. He has applied his mind to the contention of the appellant, considered the documents produced by him and passed a speaking order. 6. In all the above circumstances, the First Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.3776 of 2009 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed of. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)