1. By this Appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad-hoc Judge Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in L.C. Suit No. 755 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit with cost.

2. The brief facts are that at the instance of the Bombay Port Trust, a complaint was made regarding existence of an unauthorized structure and/or illegal unauthorized extension of structure in the Indigo Hotel existed on the open space situated at Room No. 11, Galli of Phiroz Building, Steven Street, Ground Floor, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. The Appellant was purchaser-in-title of late Jyotiswarup Valmiki, who was working as Watchman appointed by the occupiers and landlord of the said Phiroz Building since many years. It is further contended that the landlord of the Phiroz Building had allowed late Shri Jotiswarup Valmiki to stay in the suit premises. It is contended that the Appellant are in possession of the documentary evidence such as ration card, electricity bill, voter I.D. Card etc. to prove their possession in the suit structure as occupiers. The impugned Notice was issued on 04.02.2006 under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, whereby the occupiers were directed to remove the unauthorized development i.e. unauthorized construction of room admeasuring 3.0 mtrs. X 1.65 meters with the height of 4.75 mtrs. on the open space/house galli with G.I. Sheet covering at Phiroz Building, Steven Street, Colaba, Mumbai - 05. The question as to whether the suit structure is in existence since 1962 or prior to the datum line i.e. 17th April, 1964, as observed by Trial Court in the said Judgment. The contention of the Appellant is that the suit notice issued under Section 527 of the Municipal Corporation Act as also legality and validity of the notice dated 04.02.2006 issued under section 55 of the MRTP Act, as recorded above, was considered in the light of the rulings cited by the parties and the trial Court decided the question as to whether the notice structure was in existence prior to 1962 and whether there was any earlier permission granted by the Municipal Corporation or by the Mumbai Port Trust for construction of the subject matter. The parties relied upon oral and documentary evidence including the documentary evidence. The trial Court noted that Mumbai Port Trust already initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act regarding unauthorized structure and unauthorized occupation of the buildings including the suit structure. The trial Court did not find any evidence produced by the Appellant to prove that the suit structure was in existence prior to the datum line i.e. 17th April, 1964. Under these circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had not adduced or produced any specific evidence to prove validity of the existence of the notice structure which was directed to be removed under the impugned order so as to prove its existence prior to 1962. Thus the notice issued under Section 55 of the MRTP Act by the Planning Authority was held to be legal and proper and the suit came to be dismissed with cost.

3. Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 reads thus:

55. Removal or discontinuance of unauthorized temporary development summarily :

(1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this Chapter, where any person has carried out any development of a temporary nature unauthorisedly as indicated in sub-section (1) of section 52, the Planning Authority may by an order in writing direct that person to remove any structure or work erected, or discontinue the use of land made, unauthorisedly as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the receipt of the order; and if thereafter, the person does not comply with the order within the said period, the Planning Authority may request the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, [or authorize any of its