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

7SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005arrears of Rs.11,400/­ towards the sign board for the periodupto 2002­2003. By letter dated 20.9.2003, the plaintiffdeposited the amount. The plaintiff also recorded payment ofRs. 800/­towards the awning charges to the Collector ofMumbai for enclosure of said open space and an amount of Rs.950/­ towards the license fee for the period up to 2003­2004.The plaintiff also paid sum of Rs. 3500/­ towards the license feeand awning charges of Rs. 800/­ for year 2004­2005.7. On or about 12.4.2005 plaintiff received notice u/sec. 351of MMC Act alleging that the plaintiff raised unauthorizedconstruction mentioned in the notice. As the defendant askedfor removal of the structures mentioned in the notice, theplaintiff replied the notice through Advocate on 17.5.2005 andpointed out that the structure in the front open space is notunauthorized and it exists since prior to 1.4.1964 and it hasbeen included in the licensed area and assessed to the taxes.All the previous litigations were also brought to the notice ofdefendant together with the correspondence with thedefendant and the Government. The plaintiff claimed that thegarages were used for restaurant purposes since prior to 1963and no objection was raised by the Collector. So far asenclosure of front open space is concerned, it is in existencesince 1963­64 and hence, the notice is invalid, illegal and bad inlaw. The plaintiff therefore, claimed that the impugned noticeand the impugned order passed by the defendant are illegal and