( 1 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff. He is a practicing advocate. He is appearing in person. Respondent 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater mumbai (for short "the Corporation" ). Respondent 2 is one Mangesh Shripad sanzagiri, who is the Secretary of Shri Sai Niketan Co-operative Housing Society limited (for short, "the said society") situated in CTS No. 236, Plot No. 9, S. V. P. Road, Ground floor, Survey No. 22, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400103.

( 3 ) THE facts which are necessary to understand the controversy may be shortly stated as under : the petitioners brother is the member of the said society. Flat No. 1 on the ground floor of the said society stands in his name. The Corporation issued a notice under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (for short, "the said Act") calling upon the petitioner to demolish the alleged unauthorised structure being front portion of hall, admeasuring 12 x 4 x 9. 6, ground floor of Flat no. 1, Shri Sai Niketan CHS Ltd. , CTS No. 236, Hissa No. 2, Plot No. 9, Survey no. 22, Madonna Colony, S. V. P. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400103.

( 4 ) IT is the petitioners case that the alleged unauthorised structure is not constructed either by him or by his brother or the members of his family. The said flat was purchased by the petitioner from one Mr. Tagare in the year 2003. The alleged unauthorised construction was there even when the flat was purchased by the petitioner and his family. According to the petitioner, the said notice was issued by the Corporation at the instance of respondent 2. It is his further case that respondent 2 has also carried out some unauthorised construction. It is basically on these allegations that the petitioner filed L. C. Suit no. 2162 of 2005 in the City Civil Court at Mumbai challenging the said notice and praying for an order of injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the said structure. In that suit, a chamber summons was taken out by the said society praying that it may be added as party defendant in the suit. That chamber summons was granted by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 5 ) I have heard the petitioner at length. The petitioner reiterated that neither he nor any member of his family has carried out any unauthorised construction. The alleged construction was already there when the flat was purchased from Mr. Tagare in the year 2003. The petitioner drew my attention to the letter dated 29- 6-1994 addressed by the secretary of the said society to the previous owner of the said flat Mr. Tagare, which refers to the application dated 29-6-1994 of Mr. Tagare and states that it was decided in the General Body Meeting of the said society that the said society has no objection to members constructing an otla/varandha on ground level provided the construction is as per prevailing building bye laws conforming to development control rules of the Corporation. The petitioner also drew my attention to the minutes of the Managing Committee meeting held on 15-6-1994. Third Item on the agenda is "proposal by ground floor residents for constructing of balconies/varandah. " The petitioner pointed out Resolution No. 3 which reads thus :" (a) Permission for constructing of balconies would be given by the society subject to approval of the legitimate authority. (b) Application for approval be submitted individually to the society giving details of the plan for construction. (c) Finally, appropriate compensation to be given to society to be decided in the next meeting". "the petitioner contended that, it is therefore, obvious that the said society has granted no objection to Mr. Tagare in respect of construction of balconies subject to approval of the legitimate authority. According to the petitioner, therefore, the society has lost its right to object to the said construction. He contended that under s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document