The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a prima facie case and balance of convenience for granting temporary injunctions, and the need for the appellant's conduct to be free from blame.

JUDGMENT

PRITHVIRAJ K.CHAVAN, J. - This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code arises from an order dismissing a Notice of Motion No. 1289 of 2020 in L.C. Suit No. 1087 of 2020 by the City Civil Judge on 24th December, 2020.

2. Facts, necessary for disposal of the appeal can be stated hereinbelow :-

3. The appellants are the joint tenants with one Hitesh Shantilal Doshi in respect of two adjacent premises bearing No. 202 and 204B in a corrugated sheets roof, C.I. shed of "L" shape admeasuring 39 (13 meters x 3 meters) sq. meters and 30.4 (8 meters x 3.80 metes) sq. meters in both limbs on iron pillars and walls of the building and compound wall on both sides situated at 170/A, 176, Jethwa Villa, 3rd Kumbharwada Lane (old North Brooks Street), Dr. Mahimtura Marg, Mumbai 400 004 (hereinafter referred to as "notice structure").

4. The respondent no.1 ' M.C.G.M. issued a Notice to the appellants bearing No. C/DOC/220/351/C76N01 dated 21st July, 2020 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short "MMC Act"). By the said notice, the appellants were intimated that they had erected an unauthorised notice structure adjoining to Jethwa Building, known as "Shanti Metal Supply Company" admeasuring 24 x 4 x 2.6 meters approximately, by way of using Brick Masonry Wall and slopping patra shed at 204B, Ground Floor, Plot No.176, J.N. Jethwa Building. The appellants were asked to furnish approval or permission from the competent authority and also to produce relevant documentary evidence in support of the notice structure.

5. Mr. Bharat Joshi, on behalf of the appellants had furnished certain documents in support of the notice structure by stating that it is an authorised and approved structure. The documentary evidence produced by the appellants and the remarks thereof by the respondents in the speaking order dated 9th December, 2020, read thus :-

6. Having gone through the reply furnished by the appellants, respondent no.2 concluded that the documentary evidence supplied by the appellants is not authentic and not satisfactory, in the sense, there is no due approval or permission from the competent authority namely; Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City ' III of MCGM qua the notice structure.

7. Consequently, the respondents by a speaking order dated 9th December, 2020 directed the appellants to remove/demolish/pull down the notice structure within 15 days from the receipt of the order. It was, inter alia, informed that if the appellants fail to remove/demolish the notice structure, that will be removed at their own risk and cost. The appellants were inter alia intimated that they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 475A of the M.M.C. Act.

8. At the outset, if the pleadings are perused, there is no specific averment in the plaint that the notice structure has been erected with a sanctioned plan issued by the competent authority or there has been due authorisation by the respondents qua notice structure. In his elaborate argument, the learned Counsel for the appellants has emphasized several aspects, which in fact, do not find place in the plaint. Thus, sans pleadings, those submissions are hardly of any relevance.

9. A brief reference to the pleadings would clear the picture as to what has been contended by the appellants.

10. The appellants are carrying their business from the notice structure under the name and style as "Shanti Metal Supply Company", which was erstwhile known as "Padmavati Steel and Engineering Company". The appellants are the tenants qua the notice structure since 8th August, 1990. One Mr. J.N. Jethwa was the landlord. One Ramji Prajapati was the tenant in respect of the notice structure before the appellants were inducted as tenants.

11. The respondent no.1 had earlier issued a notice on 8th March, 1978 to said Ramji Prajapati under Section 351 of the M.M.C. Act. Pursuant to that notice, the earlier tenant Ramji Prajapati had filed a Suit No. 656 of 1979 challenging no