IMPORTANT POINT
Reliefs under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are equitable reliefs and are discretionary and such discretion can be exercised by the Court only when the person has come to the Court with clean hands and has not suppressed and/or material facts and makes out a prima-facie case.

R.D. Dhanuka, J.—By this appeal from order, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 2nd January, 2015 refusing to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant (original plaintiff) in the notice of motion inter-alia praying for an injunction against the Municipal Corp[oration (original defendants) from acting upon or from taking any steps pursuant to the notice dated 16th December, 2014 issued under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 as against the plaintiff and the suit premises being 43-45, Mathuradas Estate Chawl, Ground Floor, Behind Apollo Floweriest, Causeway, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005.

2. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited my attention to various averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed to the plaint and submits that the impugned structure, which was the subject matter of the notice issued under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act is in existence since 1961-1962 and the appellant has been carrying on business in the said premises since then. He submits that since the structure in question was not a temporary structure, notice itself issued under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act by the Municipal Corporation was without jurisdiction. He submits that the appellant has been also residing in the suit premises. In support of his submission that the suit structure is not a temporary structure and that the appellant has been carrying out the business in the suit premises since 1961-1962, Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the alleged Deed of Declaration dated 11th May, 1949 alleged to have been executed by one Mr.N. Saliyan. He submits that by the said document alleged to have been executed by the said Mr.N. Saliyan, the said Mr.N. Saliyan had given the space between two buildings at Mathuradas Estate Bombay to Mossa Korachamkandil. The appellant is claiming through the said Mossa Korachamkandil.

3. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a copy of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed in the month of June, 2014. He submits that even the said power of attorney would indicate the address of the suit premises in the month of June, 2014. He also placed reliance on the notice dated 10th November, 2005 issued by the Municipal Corporation under section 381 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (M.M.C. Act). Reliance is also placed on the notices dated 10th December, 2005 and 14th November, 2005. He also placed reliance on the ration card issued at the suit address.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even the telephone bills as well as electricity bills issued by various authorities would clearly indicate the address of the suit premises. He submits that all these documents were produced for perusal of the authorities in respect of which the notice under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act has been issued. He submits that though the appellant had demanded oral hearing from the Municipal Corporation, no oral hearing was provided to him. He submits that the entire action on the part of the Municipal Corporation is without jurisdiction.

5. It is submitted that this Court has already taken a primafacie view in favour of the plaintiff and has granted status-quo which is in force for quite some time. It is submitted that the appellant has no objection if hearing of the notice of motion is expedited and is heard within a reasonable period of time after the defendants filing affidavit in reply.

6. Mr.Thorat, learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation invited my attention to various documents referred to and relied upon by Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant. He also invited my attention to the notice issued under section 55 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and would submit that inspection of the suit property, the officers of the Municipal Corporation found that the appellant had erected temporary structure, which was totally unauthorized as described in the notice iss