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

6SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005In the Lease Deed dated 30.8.1940 in respect of user of demisedpremises, a provision in clause 2(o) is made as follows:­“(o) Not to use or permit to be used the demisedpremises or any part thereof for any purpose otherthan for private residential purposes or for officeshotels libraries schools colleges and clubs, butexcluding shops. Show rooms and workshop providedalways that such part only of the demised premises asfronts upon Churchgate street may be used for shopsand Provided Always that a medical practitioner or adentist may use the rooms in any flat occupied by himin the demised premises as consulting rooms ordentist's rooms”.6. By an order dated 9.10.2000 bearing reference no.0254/Bldg, the defendant withdrew the proceedings u/sec. 351of MMC Act and formally regularized the structure on thecondition mentioned in their letter dated 20.10.2000. By letterdated 31.10.2001, the Chief Architect, Maharashtra Stategranted approval to the said awning and alterations thereto.Subsequently on 24.5.2004 the office of Executive Engineer,PWD certified that the repairs and renovation work has beencarried out in accordance with the approval granted by ChiefArchitect. By letter dated 22.5.2002 issued by Deputy ChiefEngineer of defendant Corporation, approval of structure by theMumbai Heritage Conversation Committee has beencommunicated to the plaintiff. By letter dated 16.9.2003, theCollector of Mumbai called upon plaintiff to pay arrears oflicense fee for enclosure of front open space of Rs. 4600/­ and