1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.213 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2008 Trevor D'Silva .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation of .... Respondents Greater Mumbai & Ors. Mr. V.R. Tripathi i/by M/s V.R. Tripathi & Associates for Appellant. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. Ruben Fernandez, Advocate for respondents no.3 to 5. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Reserved for order on : 11th July,2008 For pronouncement on : 8th September,2008 P.C. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, learned Advocate waives service for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ruben Fernandez, learned Advocate waives service for the respondents no. 3 to 5. By consent the rule is taken up on board for final hearing. Heard both the Counsels. 2. This Appeal from Order is preferred to challenge the correctness and legality of the interim order dated 13th February,2008 passed by learned Bombay 2 City Civil Court refusing interim injunction to restrain the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises and for a mandatory order directing them to grant permission to the appellant to put up roof on the suit premises. The suit as filed originally was against respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Assistant Municipal Commissioner. Respondents No. 2 and 3 who are the owners of the suit premises had taken out Chamber Summons for impleading themselves as party defendants to the suit. That Chamber Summons was allowed and respondents no. 3 to 5 have been arrayed as defendants to the suit. All the respondents have filed their written statements to the suit. 3. The case of the appellant is that he is the tenant in respect of the suit premises of one Mrs. Maureen Fernandez at the monthly rent of Rs.10/-. The suit premises consisted of ground floor structure made up of bricks masonary walls with Mangalore tile roof, constructed some where in the year 1947. Since the premises were in a dilapidated condition, the appellant desired to repair the same. He had approached respondents no. 3 to 5 who are the heirs of Mrs. Maureen Fernandes for permission to repairs, however, 3 they failed to respond to him. He then approached the Officers of respondent no.1- Corporation for permission to repair the suit premises. The Officers of respondent no.1 informed him that the repairs to the suit premises proposed by the appellant were tenantable repairs for which no permission of Mumbai Municipal Corporation was required. Therefore, the appellant commenced the work of repairs by putting new plaster to the walls and changing the beams of the roof by iron girders. 4. Respondent No.1 served notice dated 9th October,2006 upon the appellant under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by affixing the same on the door of the suit premises. The notice mentions that there is unauthorised repairs and extension of the existing structure of the suit premises and calls upon the appellant to stop the work, failing which the same was to be demolished. According to the appellant, by that time, the only work remaining was the repairs to the roof. Since, according to the appellant, the work carried out by him was not unauthorised, he filed the suit herein to challenge the impugned notice. Perusal of the plaint shows that the appellant has sought only the relief of declaration 4 that the impugned notice is illegal and bad in law. He has not sought any consequential relief of injunction though being able to seek the same. Therefore, the suit would be hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 5. Respondents no. 2 and 3 deny that they were approached by the appellant for any permission to repair the suit structure. They allege that in fact there is an order of injunction passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in an eviction suit filed against the appellant restraining him from carrying out any work in the suit premises. The said orders are dated 16th October 2006 and 9th November 2006. Despite the orders of injunction, the appellant carried out the work. Therefore, he is not entitled to any equitable relief. 6. It is also alleged on the part of respondents that under the guise of repairs to the suit premises, the appellant has in fact reconstructed the entire structure by demolishing existing structure. The photographs produced by respondents no. 3 to 5 support the allegations of respondents. Though the appellant has made an attempt to submit that he has merely re- 5 plastered the walls, the photographs indicate otherwise. 7. The learned trial Judge has considered all the above aspects of the matter to reject the application for interim reliefs. It has been sought to be submitted before this Court that if the appellant is not permitted to put the roof over the suit premises, he would be without shelter. There appears little merit in this submission, because according to the respondents 3 to 5, the appellant has stopped residing in the suit premises since the year 1998. He has acquired premises at Vile Parle, where he has been residing. This is one of the grounds for eviction of the appellant in the suit filed by respondents no. 3 and 5 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the Appeal filed by the appellant. The same is therefore dismissed. 8. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive. Hence, it is accordingly dismissed. 9. Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the appellant applies for extension of the order dated 11th 6 March, 2008. Taking into consideration the blatent violation of the repairs permission, the application is rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)