Clarity on facts and the distinction between statutory provisions are crucial in determining the entitlement to equitable relief.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is directed against an order dtd. 18/11/2019, passed in Notice of Motion No.3403 of 2014 in L.C. Suit No. 2466 of 2014, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, thereby dismissing the Notice of Motion.

2. Background facts leading to this Appeal can be stated as under:-

(a) The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of the premises situated at House No.82, Worli, Koliwada, Mumbai ("the suit premises"). It consisted of ground plus two upper floors and it had been in existence since last more than 100 years. A portion of the said building collapsed in the year 2001. The plaintiff was advised to carry out repairs to the rest of the structure, which was standing. Whilst the plaintiff carried out the said repairs, at the behest of Mr. H.R. Bhagat, who claimed to be an heir of one of the tenants in the suit property, the defendantCorporation issued a notice dtd. 28/8/2014, purportedly under Sec. 354 A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("the Act, 1888").

(b) A reply was given to the said notice on 28/8/2014, itself. (c) Apprehending demolition at the hands of defendant, the plaintiff approached the City Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration that the notice dtd. 28/8/2014, was bad in law and the defendant had no right to take any action of demolition in respect of suit premises and also to permanently restrain the defendant and its servants and agents from acting upon the notice dtd. 28/8/2014. (d) In the said suit, the plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.

(e) On 10/9/2014, the learned Judge, City Civil Court was persuaded to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the plaintiff by restraining defendant from taking any action on the basis of the notice dtd. 28/8/2014, as no speaking order was passed by the Designated Officer despite reply to the notice.

(f) Plaintiff asserts without considering the reply, the governing provisions of law, binding decisions of the courts and the circulars issued by the defendant, a speaking order came to be passed on 28/10/2014, by the Designated Officer. The plaintiff was called upon to remove the unauthorized work, failing which it would be demolished by the defendant. The said speaking order also came to be assailed by carrying out amendment in the Plaint and Notice of Motion.

3. The defendant-Corporation resisted the Notice of Motion by filing an affidavit-in-reply. It was, inter alia, contended that the plaintiff had instituted Suit No.2388 of 2009, for a declaration that the defendant has no right to cause any obstruction in the plaintiff carrying out repair/renovation/reconstruction in respect of the suit property and the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2013. Subsequently, a complaint was received that the unauthorized construction was being erected at the suit property. Officers of the defendant visited the suit property and found that the unauthorized construction of B.M. Wall admeasuring 9' in height was in progress. Thus the notice under Sec. 354 A was served on the plaintiff. Post consideration of the reply, the Designated Officer has passed the order on 28/10/2014, repelling the objections to the notice. The plaintiff has thus no right to seek temporary injunction.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, City Civil Court was persuaded to reject the Notice of Motion holding, inter alia, that the action of the defendant and the notice issued under Sec. 354A of the Act, 1888, were in conformity with law. Moreover, the Designated Officer had considered the reply submitted by the plaintiff and passed a reasoned order. The Court noted the photographs tendered for the perusal of the court purportedly snapped on 21/7/2017 and 16/8/2014 revealed that the entire structure had collapsed and foundation of brick masonry wall was being laid, respectively. It was thus concluded that the construction was being carried out sans any permission. Sinc