IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY S.C. ...

25SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005order is at Exh.63.26. On going through this entire evidence, it clearly seemsthat the plaintiff has been granted permission to cover the openspace around the building Soona Mahal from time to time andeven the charges for the use has been collected by theGovernment as well as the Municipal Corporation and the saidcovering is in existence since 1957. The Government is thelessor and the Society is the lessee and unless the Governmentrevoke the permission finally, it would be improper to permitthe defendants to demolish the covering which has beentolerated by the defendants also. The above discussionexplicitly shows that the defendants also, as per their choiceissued notices under Sec. 351 of MMC Act of similar nature asthat of the present one which is subject matter of the suit andrecalled the same and tolerate the structure.27. Though the witness for defendant stated that theinspection was carried out and the structure was noticed, thisparticular statement appears to me motivated as thedefendants have record in their possession showing that thesaid structure exists since long and previously also notices wereissued and dropped after the plaintiff filed suits and obtainedreliefs. This particular conduct of the defendant cited abovewhile discussing the evidence, clearly amounts to waiver andacquiescence. Therefore, now the defendants are estopped