- (1.) This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 8th September 2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai in L.C. Suit No.375 of 2016, thereby dismissing the Notice of Motion No.1186 of 2016 filed therein.
(2.) The said Notice of Motion was preferred by the appellant-original plaintiff seeking relief of interim injunction restraining the respondent- Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises without providing permanent alternate accommodation. It is submitted by the appellant that he is in possession of the commercial premises bearing I.D. No.107, admeasuring 426.5 sq.ft., constructed of bricks, masonry wall and A.C. sheet roof, situate at Tiwari Chawl, on the land bearing C.T.S. No.33- B. His possession is that of a tenant and the suit premises are in existence since prior to the year 1961-62. The land below the suit premises is a private land. According to the appellant, he is paying the rent regularly to the landlord and, therefore, respondent-Municipal Corporation has no right to evict him from the possession of the suit premises without following the due process of law. It is contended that the respondent-Municipal Corporation has, however, issued notice to him on 25th July 2011 informing him that, for the project of 'Road Over Bridge at Jogeshwari, Mumbai' the land below the suit premises is required and hence, the appellant should produce the documents proving his eligibility for getting permanent alternate accommodation under the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the Maharashtra Urban Transport Project. It was further informed to him that, if he fails to produce the documents showing his eligibility, the suit premises will be demolished. According to the appellant, immediately he has produced relevant documents. However, those documents were not given due importance and as a result thereof, he apprehends that the necessary action of demolition of the suit premises would be taken by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, without providing him permanent alternate accommodation. Hence, he approached the Trial Court by filing Suit along with Notice of Motion seeking relief of interim injunction, as stated above.
(3.) The respondent-Municipal Corporation has resisted the said Notice of Motion by contending, inter alia, that the suit premises are unauthorized, illegal and not in existence since prior to the datum line. It was further submitted, by way of an affidavit-in-reply of the Sub-Engineer Mr. S.R. Bhojane, that the appellant was, totally, claiming possession over the three structures bearing I.D. Nos.108 and 116 and the suit structure bearing I.D. No.107. As regards the other two structures bearing I.D. Nos.108 and 116, as the appellant was found in possession of the valid documents, permanent alternate accommodation was allotted to him. However, so far as the suit structure bearing I.D. No.107 was concerned, the appellant has failed to justify his eligibility for the same. The only documents which he has relied upon were the Rent Deed and Rent Receipts. However, on that basis, the existence of the suit structure since prior to the datum line or possession of the appellant therein was not proved and hence his claim for permanent alternate accommodation in respect of the suit structure bearing I.D. No.107 was not allowed.;