1 AO-1046.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1046 OF 2009 Satish Dalichand Shah .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri Yadunath Choudhary i/b Kunal Cheema for the Appellant. Ms K.K. Soraan for Respondent No.1. Ms R.C. Nichani i/b Shri S.R. Singh for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 06, 2010 P.C: 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed on 21-8-2009 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division rejecting the appellant/plaintiff's Notice of Motion No.1458 of 2008 in L.C. Suit No.1381 of 2008. 2. The plaintiff is a tenant in respect of shop premises where he runs a jewellery shop. According to the respondent-MCGM, the plaintiff had amalgamated two shops - 50 & 51 2 AO-1046.09 and carried out extension on the rear side admeasuring 8'3" x 18'9" and on the front side admeasuring 8'3" x 18'9". It, therefore, issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, considered the plaintiff's reply and by order dated 18-7-2008 directed the plaintiff to remove the structures. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit and prayed for an injunction to restrain defendant No.1-MCGM from removing the structure. 3. The landlord was allowed to join the suit as defendant No.2 and supports the action by MCGM. He pointed out that even in the past MCGM had issued notices under Section 351 of the MMC Act to the plaintiff who had filed Suit Nos.1922 of 1996, 1910 of 1996 and 639 of 2001 but had failed to get any relief. 4. The MCGM supported its action. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge by his impugned order rejected the notice of motion. Hence this appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the 3 AO-1046.09 appellant submitted that the MCGM had initiated action under Section 351 in respect of 8' x 8' construction on the rear side of the shop and dropped it by letter dated 29-7-1969. He further submitted that by letter dated 28-8-1986, MCGM had permitted his client to enclose the otla (platform) in front of the shop for security purpose. He also relied on approval by Superintendent of Custom for repairs to his shop. He submitted that the landlord had filed a suit complaining of alterations, etc., and the suit was dismissed on 15-1-2002 and that in fact the landlord had granted a no-objection certificate for alterations and modifications on 20-7-2001. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents rightly point out that none of these documents show that the appellant had any permission or authorisation from municipal authorities for structures which are 10' x 18'9" and 8'3" x 18'9" on the two sides. Permission to have a temporary C.I. sheet structure of 8' x 8' on rear cannot justify 10' x 18'9" brick masonry wall room. Also permission for enclosure of otla for the purpose of security could not have been utilised by the appellant for having a regular 4 AO-1046.09 extension in the front. In view of this, the learned trial Judge cannot be held to have erred in refusing injunction. The Appeal From Order is, therefore, dismissed. Interim orders to continue for a period of four weeks. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)