( 1 ) THE appellants, who sued for protection of their structures in the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, have filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28/11/2006, dismissing their Suit with costs.

( 2 ) THE DMC has considered each of the documents relied upon by the appellants in reply to the notice received by them. He has not considered the application for repair permission since that was not relied upon by the appellants. The learned Judge has also considered in detail the worth of each of the appellants' documents. In these circumstances, it would have to be seen whether the learned Judge has correctly considered the appellants' case on merits.

( 3 ) THE appellants were issued a notice of the respondents dated 18. 4. 2002 for construction of a structure with b. M. Walls. A. C. Sheet roof, providing 9 rolling shutters in the front and providing ladi coba ladi slab below a. C. sheet roof as shown in the sketch. The measurements of the structure are shown in the sketch. The notice was replied on 29. 4. 2002. The appellants, inter alia, relied upon assessment bills and census certificates. Both these documents are shown in the plural. Hence, the reliance is shown on more than one assessment bill and more than one census certificate. The DMC of the MMC passed an order on 28. 8. 2003, considering the plaintiffs' documents. That order as well as the notice came to be impugned in the suit filed by the appellants.

( 4 ) IT is the appellants' case that they purchased the suit property under a conveyance executed in 1993. The schedule to the conveyance shows a "built- up structure admeasuring 10,500 sq. feet, 40 years old with brick walls and cement sheets" being conveyed to the appellants. The description as well as the dimensions of each of the structures are a part of the additions made in ink in the conveyance deed which is otherwise a typewritten document.

( 5 ) ONE assessment bill for a shed assessed under Rule 1954 (2)has been relied upon by the appellants. It shows assessment from 1. 4. 1966 for the shed in the name of one Mohammed Yakub. There is no other assessment bill for any other structure relied upon by the appellants in reply to the notice, though the notice shows that the assessment bills are produced. There is no other assessment bill produced in the trial Court or in this Appeal.

( 6 ) THE appellants have produced two letters dated 15. 5. 2000 and 25. 9. 2001 in respect of three censussed structures which are census sed under Nos. RXX 92-1/1, RXX 93-1/1 and RXX 94-1/1. These letters are issued by the Collector to the relevant Ward officer of the respondent. He made a reference to the aforesaid three censussed structures in a church compound showing the particulars of the censussed structures. These particulars are shown to be temporary construction with patra walls and patra roof. They are described as huts. The letter dated 25. 9. 2001 shows a permanent construction of two separate structures admeasuring 1604. 53 sq. feet and 1149. 13 sq. feet seen, on inspection by their office and for which action is requested by the relevant Ward Office of the respondent. It is these letters which are stated to be census certificates. The entire reliance in the trial court as well as in the Appellate Court upon these letters is misplaced and meant to mislead. These are the letters by the Government office to the local body giving particulars of the earlier censussed structures in whose place a permanent construction has been put up. They are not census certificates. They are not addressed to the appellants. The dimensions of the earlier census sed structures are not shown. Only the particulars of the construction complained of are shown. These are sought to be produced as census certificates and based upon the letter dated 25. 9. 2001, it is sought to be argued that the censussed structure was of an area of 2753. 66 sq. meters !

( 7 ) THERE is a permission for restoration of two structures dam