R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

( 2 ) THE appellant challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in the First Appeal No. 1192 of 2001. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 8th June, 2001 passed by the Trial Court on preliminary issue of limitation was dismissed while confirming the order of the Trial Court and holding that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the law of limitation.

( 3 ) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the appellant claims to be monthly tenant of a suit shop situated on the ground floor at Gulab Baug, Laxmi Bazar, M. G. Road, santacruz (West), Mumbai. Undisputedly, he is in possession of the said premises. A po- tice under Section 351 of the Bombay municipal Corporation, 1888, which is now called as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation act, 1888, hereinafter called as "the said act", came to be issued to the appellant on 23rd May, 1994 alleging that the appellant had carried out extension of 1. 30 m x 4. 30m. in front of the said shop premises and requiring the appellant to show cau