A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.) This appeal arose out of judgment and order dated 7.3.2008 in L.C.Suit No.4016 of 1998 which was dismissed by learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court. It was a suit for declaration filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) on the ground that notice issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 15.11.1997 under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act, bearing no.ABSI/65/351/Bldg., 9798 issued in respect of the structure covering open space on the ground floor with C.I. Angles Frame and G.I.Sheet over it, at 4, Pandey Road, Opposite Hotel Supreme, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, is illegal, void, and for restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking action of removal or demolition of the suit structure pursuant to the notice. It appears that the plaint was also exhaustively amended during the pendency of the suit on the ground that plaintiff have documents issued in the name of previous owner of the property to establish long standing existence of suit structure, while challenging the alleged unauthorized user of the premises as alleged by Municipal Corporation. It appears that the Municipal Corporation, regarding the alleged unauthorized user, had requested predecessor in tittle of the plaintiff M/s.Najoo Investments Co. Ltd. to produce authentic documentary evidence regarding the alleged unauthorized user of covered passage admeasuring 17 feet x 9.9 feet adjoining the building.
(2.) It appears that the trial court, after considering the evidence and copies of documents, observed in concluding paragraph of the judgment as follows : "8 The plaintiff in support of his claim has placed reliance on the Circular bearing no.CE/30054/11 OF 2/12/80. Now from the facts of the present case it appears that the plaintiff has erected shed in the open space and the same is admeasuring 8' x 40". If he wants to get the said structure regularized, he is at liberty to do so. However, only on the basis of this Circular, it cannot be said that the notice dated 15th November, 1997 and order passed on 6th January, 1998 are illegal. Hence, I answer points 2 and 3 in the negative and pass the following order : ORDER Suit is dismissed."
(3.) The plaintiff in support of his claim has placed reliance on the Circular bearing no.CE/30054/11 of 2.12.1980. While observing that the plaintiff had erected a shed in the open space admeasuring 8 feet x 40 feet and that if he wanted to get the said structure regularized, he was at liberty to to so, rejected the contention regarding the legality and validity of the notice from the plaintiff's side.;