1. Admit.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 2058 of 2016 thereby refusing the ad interim relief as sought by the appellant for restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 354-A of the MMC Act on 23.05.2016 and in pursuance thereof, the order passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner on 19.08.2016.

4. The case of the appellant is that, he is in possession of the suit premises consisting of Ground + two floors area admeasuring about 1800 sq. ft. bearing CTS Nos.925 and 937, Rambachan Singh Compound, Vinoba Bhave Nagar at Kurla (W), Mumbai-400 070. It is further his case that the said construction consists of B.M. wall with A.C. sheet roof. According to him, he has acquired said premises pursuant to the consent terms dated 11.02.2016, filed in Suit No. 1359 of 2012. It is his case that the said premises is in very same condition since inception and in existence since prior to 1976. The area, in which the premises are situated, is also declared as slum area vide Government Notification dated 12.02.1976. The structure is also assessed to the Municipal Taxes. He has simply replaced the A.C. sheet roof in place of old one as the old one was badly damaged. However, as his relations with the neighbours are not cordial, they made false complaints to the Municipal Corporation and the respondent-Municipal Corporation, acting on their complaints, issued the impugned notice dated 23.05.2016 under Section 354-A of the MMC Act calling upon him to stop immediately the erection of the unauthorized construction of the second floor. He has replied the said notice with the explanation that he is not carrying out any new construction but was just replacing the A.C. sheet roof. He has also produced on record the documents, like, the assessment bill of the year 1980. However, without considering his contention, the final order came to be passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner on 19.08.2016, thereby calling upon him to remove the said construction on the ground that it is illegal and unauthorized.

5. The appellant was, therefore, constrained to approach Trial Court and by the draft Notice of Motion filed along with Suit, he sought the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the said notice and the final order.

6. The respondent-Municipal Corporation, however, resisted the said Notice of Motion and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the Trial Court was pleased to reject the ad-interim relief.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, neither the respondent-Municipal Corporation nor the Trial Court has properly considered his case. It is submitted that since beginning the suit structure consists of Ground + two floors and he is not carrying out any new construction but only changing the A.C. sheet roof. Secondly, it is urged that the Trial Court has not considered the fact that, as the suit structure is falling under the slum area, notified by the Competent Authority, the Municipal Corporation cannot take any action. The reliance is also placed on the unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Govardhan Ramnaresh Singh Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai in Appeal from Order No. 257 of 1999 dated 15.04.1999 to submit that once the construction is complete, the Municipal Corporation cannot take any action under Section 354-A of the MMC Act and the remedy lies somewhere in any other provision.

8. The reliance is also placed on the Judgment of this Court in the case Shri Ramawatar Babulal Jajodia Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai, 2014 (2) ALL MR 303 to urge that the Municipal Corporation has no jurisdiction to