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

9SC Suit No. 2572 of 2005impugned notice claiming that the structure is authorized bythe Government and necessary permission have been taken.Moreover, the structure is assessed. However, rejecting thecontentions raised,the Assistant Commissioner passedreasoned order directing removal of the suit structure. Theyclaimed that the plaintiff filed his suit and obtained ad­interimorder misleading the Court. The plaintiff failed to producesanctioned plan from the competent authority or anydocument showing the existence of structure prior todemolition. Defendant further contended that the permissiongranted by the Collector to put awning is revoked. The maincontention raised by defendant is that the plaintiff failed toproduce any authorized plan in respect of covering of openspace and conversion of garages and claimed that in absence ofthese documents the suit is liable to be dismissed and bedismissed with costs.9. The defendant also filed additional written statementdated 19.12.2005. In the additional written statement also thesame grounds have been raised stating that after consideringthe entire documents referred by the plaintiff in his reply to theimpugned notice, the impugned order came to be passed andthere was no evidence to show that the Restaurant existedsince prior to 1963 or 1957­58. Even the licensed area of1957­58 was 366.58 sq.mts and the premises consisting ofeating house located within building line and the area covered