1. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants- Applicants; Mrs. More, learned counsel for the Respondent-MCGM; and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3-Society.

2. The Appellants are the Original Plaintiffs, whose Notice of Motion No.1687 of 2017 filed in L.C. Suit No.1058 of 2017 came to be dismissed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, vide its order dated 17th February 2018. Hence, being aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have preferred this Appeal.

3. The said Notice of Motion was taken out by the Appellants, seeking interim injunction, restraining the Respondent-Municipal Corporation from taking any action in pursuance of the notice dated 11th October 2013 and the order dated 22nd April 2017, passed under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

4. The case of the Appellants is that, they are the holders of Industrial Unit Nos.15, 16, 23, 24 and 25, which are located on the Ground Floor of the building known as “Jaywant Industrial Premises”. By virtue of the 'Deed of Assignment', dated 24th December 2001, executed by M/s. Four Seasons Air Conditioning Company, Appellants have become entitled to the suit premises and the open space in front thereof. According to them, there was an entrance from the Northern side, i.e. rear side of the suit building, since inception. However, in or about 2012, the office bearers of Respondent No.3-Society, in which the suit Units are situate, started harassing the Appellants by lodging various proceedings and making false complaints to the Respondent- Municipal Corporation, alleging that the said construction is illegal and unauthorized. In pursuance thereto, the impugned notice dated 11th October 2013 came to be issued to the Appellants, alleging that they have carried out following unauthorized work :-

(i) Unauthorized entrance by creating door, admeasuring 2 mtrs. x 1.5 mtrs. and steps (stairs), admeasuring 2.5 + 2 mtrs. X 1.4 mtrs. ½

(ii) Unauthorzed windows, admeasuring (a) 2 mtrs. x 1.1 mtr.; (b) 2 mtrs. X 1.9 mtrs.; (c) 2 mtrs. x 1.9 mtrs.; (d) 2 mtrs. X 1.1 mtr., as shown in the sketch

5. According to the Appellants, the above-said notice was issued on incorrect facts and false assumptions. Hence, they have replied the same contending, inter alia, that, the impugned construction is not at all illegal or unauthorized, but it was in existence since the year 1996 and it was carried out after obtaining the requisite permission and getting the 'Plan' sanctioned there for. Despite that, the Designated Officer of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has passed an order dated 22nd November 2014, directing the Appellants to remove the said construction or to face an action for its demolition.

6. The Appellants had, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.10804 of 2014, challenging the said order. It came to be allowed and the Designated Officer of the Respondent-Municipal Corporation, who heard the matter, was directed to pass a fresh order. Accordingly, this order dated 22nd April 2017 came to be passed, after giving fresh hearing to the Appellants and again holding the impugned structure to be illegal and unauthorized and directing the Appellants to remove the same or to face the action for its demolition.

7. Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellants have approached the Trial Court; however, the Trial Court has also, vide its impugned order, refused the interim relief, by dismissing the Notice of Motion and hence, the Appellants are constrained to approach this Court.

8. The main contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants is that, the construction impugned in the notice is not at all illegal and unauthorized, but it was carried out after getting the 'Plans' sanctioned from the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. To substantiate this submission, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has mainly relied upon the letter dated 15th December 1995, issued by the Architect Ulhas J. Pagnis to the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) of th