65-AO-400-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.400 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9126 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.400 OF 2024 Mohammed @ Sahajada Salim Mohammed Abdul Aziz Shaikh an adult, aged about 53 years, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, Occupation-Business, residing at, Room No.61, 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017 …Appellant Applicant (Org. Plainti=) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai Nagar Chowk, Opposite CST Station, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 2. Assistant Commissioner, Through Designated OAcer, G/N Ward, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 ...Respondents (Org. Defendants) —————— Mr. J. D. Mishra a/w Mr. Jitendra Shukla for the Appellant/Applicant Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Respondents-Corporation —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JUNE 22, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 6th May 2024 by which the Notice of Motion No. 1102 of 2024 came to be SQ Pathan 1/4 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date: 2026.06.25 12:50:33 +0530 65-AO-400-2024.doc rejected. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, noted that it is not speciGcally pleaded by the Plainti=s that the suit premises, including the notice structure, is situated at 41/42, Abubakar Estate, Dharavi Cross Road, Mumbai-17, nor have they placed on record any document showing the boundary line between Abubakar Chawl and AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai. It further noted the inspection report of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation dated 22nd December 2023 by which the oAcers of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation noticed an unauthorized construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai. The documents produced on record, as well as the pleadings in the plaint showed that the suit premises were situated at 41/42, Abubakar Estate, Dharavi Cross Road, Mumbai-17 and in view of the said position, the Trial Court held that the Plainti= may be a tenant of the suit premises situated at Abubakar Estate, Dharavi, Cross Road, Mumbai. However, the notice is in respect of an unauthorized construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai-17, which is di=erent from the address mentioned in the rent receipts. 2. Before this Court, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Plainti= is that, though the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act refers to an unauthorized construction at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, there is an SQ Pathan 2/4 65-AO-400-2024.doc apprehension on the part of the Plainti= that the Plainti='s premises, which are situated within Abubakar Chawl, will be demolished by the Corporation. He would further point out the documents produced before the Trial Court in order to demonstrate that the Plainti= is a tenant in respect of Ground Floor Tenement No. 61 in a property situated at Abubakar Estate, Mumbai-17. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act has been issued in respect of an unauthorized construction of a ground Ioor structure with the help of brick masonry walls and an AC sheet roof, situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai. He would further submit that, as the documents are in respect of premises at Abubakar Estate, Dharavi Chawl, which is not the same as the notice structure, the Trial Court has refused to grant any protection. 4. From a perusal of the documents produced on record by the Plainti= to demonstrate the existence of the structure prior to the datum line, it is evident that the rent receipts are in respect of Ground Floor Tenement No. 61 in a property situated at 41/42, Dharavi, Abubakar Estate, Mumbai-17. The notice issued is in respect of an unauthorized construction situated at AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai, at 60 Feet Cross Road. As rightly held by the Trial Court, the documents SQ Pathan 3/4 65-AO-400-2024.doc produced by the Plainti= show the Plainti= as a tenant of the suit premises which is di=erent from the notice structure. As the notice under Section 351 has been issued in respect of a speciGc unauthorized construction, any action taken would necessarily be in respect of the unauthorized construction situated at 60 Feet Cross Road, AKG Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai-28, and not in respect of the Plainti='s premises stated to be situated in a chawl known as Abubakar Chawl. As the notice structure is di=erent from the Plainti='s premises, as evident from the material placed on record, the Notice of Motion has been rightly rejected, as grant of protection would amount to protecting a structure which is di=erent from the notice structure. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal from Order. The same stands dismissed. 6. Needless to clarify that any action taken by the Corporation would be only in respect of the structure which is the subject matter of the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. 7. The Interim Application does not survive for consideration. The same stands disposed of. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] SQ Pathan 4/4