1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 744 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1585 OF 2008 IN LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 1747 OF 2008 Shri. Manohar V. Nayak .......Appellants Verus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ........Respondents Mr.Sharad K.Bhosale, adv.for appellants. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, adv. for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 5 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken up for hearing. Mrs.Joglekar waives service of notice of final hearing. Heard the Advocates. 2. This appeal is preferred to challenge ad-interim order dated 24th July, 2008 refusing protection to disputed work admittedly carried out by the 2 appellant. There is further no dispute that the appellant has not taken permission from the authorities for the work. The appellant has carried out the work of enclosure of common passage at the ground floor of Maneklal Mansion by providing collapsible gate, M.S.Grill and wooden door. He has also provided cupboard in the common passage and erected a temporary shed in the open space. Therefore, the respondent issued Notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 calling upon the appellant to remove the unauthorized work of temporary nature put by him. The appellant claims to have put up the collapsible gate, M.S.Grill and wooden door at the instance of the police to ward off thefts. Even if there is any apprehension of theft, it does not mean that the appellant encroaches upon the common area. The common passage in the building is for the use of all the occupants in the building. The disputed structure would definetly interfere with the use of other occupants of the passage. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for ad-interim relief. There is no need to disturb the order. Hence, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]