The petitioner is the original plaintiff.
The petitioner furnished explanation to the said numberice vide letter dated 11th October, 1999, refuting the allegation of unauthorised companystruction.
feet, owned by a Trust, namely, Ram Kumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust, respondent No.2 herein.
However, subsequently the said owner of the property, namely, the Trust was also impleaded.
On 1st September, 1999, a numberice under Section 354 A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for short the Act was issued to the petitioner, alleging unauthorised reconstruction of the structure by him, to which he responded vide his reply dated 5th September, 1999.
Relief of injunction, restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structure which was referred to as Shed bearing No.180, was prayed for.
It was also the stand of the Trust that the Shed was initially admeasuring 450 sq.
According to the petitioner, a fire broke out in the suit premises and the adjoining premises on 25th August, 1999, affecting the second floor along with the loft therein.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the suit challenging the said numberice and order passed by the Corporation, seeking a declaration to the effect that the order and numberice were illegal.
feet only but the petitioner companystructed ground plus two upper floors illegally without permission, companysent and approval of the Trust and without getting the plan sanctioned from the Corporation.
The stand of the petitioner did number find favour with the High Court.
He was called upon to produce documentary evidence to show that the building or work or change of user was number unauthorised.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed six issues.
In the same letter the petitioner issued a numberice to the Corporation, purporting to be a numberice under Section 527 of the Act, threatening a legal action against the said show cause numberice.
On being informed, an officer of the Corporation inspected the site, prepared the inspection report and observed that numbermajor damage was caused to the structure.
He carried out further companystruction on the plot prior to 1981 and companystructed ground plus two upper floors.
However, the petitioner carried out unauthorised companystruction under the guise of repairs to the portions of the Shed which was partially damaged in the fire, which broke out in the year 1999.
This land was given to him with a right to put up companystruction thereon as per the rent receipt dated 13th May, 1969.
The petitioner and the Trust led evidence and the Corporation was permitted to cross examine the witnesses.
The explanation so furnished by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Corporation vide their letter dated 3rd December, 1999, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the structure was in existence prior to datum line of 1st April, 1962.
Initially, the suit was filed only against the Corporation.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed First Appeal to the High Court.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The stand of the Trust was that the petitioner was never given an open piece land on lease but a built up Shed No.180 , on the ground floor only, was given to him on rent.
However, the suit was companytested by the Trust, by filing written statement.
The Corporation did number file its written statement.
On companysideration of the evidence, so adduced, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that the first floor was in existence in the year 1969, when he had taken possession of the suit premises or that companystruction above the first floor was in existence before the datum line.
Against the said judgment, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred Review Application.
He filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Bombay Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation , restraining them from carrying out demolition of the property bearing Shed No.80, Bombay Talkies Compound, Malad West Bombay.
Both these orders are questioned in the present Special Leave Petitions.
The case of the petitioner is that since 1969 he is the tenant in respect of an open piece of land admeasuring 1118 sq.
O R D E R K. JAIN, J. These petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution, are directed against the judgment, dated 14th September, 2005, rendered by the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay in First Appeal No.580 of 2005 and order dated 28th October, 2005, passed in the review petition, whereby the appeal as well as the review application preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the Bombay City Civil Court, dismissing his suit have been dismissed.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved, a few relevant facts may be stated.
