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

27SC Suit No. 2572 of 20054.4.1995) in which it is held that in view of the circular of thedefendants the structure of awning being constructed prior to1978­79 are protected and the Municipal Corporation wasdirected to take decision about regularizing the awning subjectto the conditions, if any, to be imposed. In the instant casepending before me, the awning is older more than involved inthis case. Therefore, the defendant ought to have taken properdecision about it.31. After scrutinizing the entire evidence, it clearly appearsthat the defendants from time and again issued notices underSection 351 of MMC Act in respect of the same structure andthen regularized or abandoned the action. There is sufficientevidence on record in the form of letters of the GovernmentAuthorities i.e. Chief Architect to Government and Collector toMumbai to show that the plaintiff was utilizing the open spacewith the permission of the Government and even the coveringof the open space has been made with the permission ofGovernment Authorities as well as the defendant itself. Underthese circumstances it cannot lie in the mouth of defendantthat the structure and the user of garages has been changedwithout it's permission. The correspondence referred abovealso shows that both the authorities indulged incorrespondence shifting the responsibilities to each other. TheGovernment authority, who authorized the structures andit's uses is competent to revoke the permission granted and