: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1051 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3034 OF 2009 Uttamchand Ratanchand Kankaliya ... Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay ... Respondents Mr. S.K. Jain i/b. M/s. S.K. Jain & Associates for the Appellant-Applicant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 24 TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: 1. The First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order in Long Cause Suit No.371 of 1998. The suit filed by the appellant against the issuance of a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation s Act has been dismissed. Initially, the plaintiff, i.e. the appellant herein, had only sought a declaration that the notice was bad and that it should be quashed. However, it appears that the suit structure was demolished on 23rd August, 2003, during the pendency of the suit, as there was no interim order in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, two additional issues were framed as to whether the demolition was : 2 : illegal and, whether the plaintiff was entitled to reconstruction of the suit structure. 2. The trial court on the basis of the evidence led before it has held that the suit structure was not in existence prior to the datum line i.e. prior to 1st April, 1962 and, therefore, has dismissed the suit. 3. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the evidence on record indicates that the structure was in existence in 1967 as the plaintiff had produced evidence on record that the rent for the suit structure was being collected by the Rent Collector since 1967. 4. Assuming that the rent had been collected in respect of the suit structure from 1967, it still does not indicate that the structure was in existence prior to the datum line i.e. prior to 1st April, 1962. 5. I have perused the evidence which has been produced before the trial court and I have found that the judgment of the trial court must be confirmed. The trial court has correctly assessed the evidence on record and held that the plaintiff s witness has : 3 : admitted that the structure had not been built after due authorization being obtained from the Municipal Corporation. The trial court has also considered the fact that the earliest document which the plaintiff had produced, to indicate that the suit structure was in existence prior to 1962 when he claimed the possession of the suit structure, was the voters list of 1967 to 1972 which shows the address of the suit structure and that one Shantabai Laxman was in possession of that structure. Even taking into consideration this document, the trial court has rightly found that there is no evidence to indicate that the structure was in existence prior to 1962. In my opinion, the suit has rightly been dismissed. 6. The First Appeal is dismissed. 7. In view of the above, the Civil Application No.3034 of 2009 pending in the First Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed accordingly. .......