JUDGMENT-This is an appeal from an order passed by judge Shanbhag of the Bombay City Civil Court on August 30, 1971 granting an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant-Corporation from demolishing a room of which the plaintiff is a tenant in certain premises at Bhandup in Bombay. The Municipal authorities served a notice dated November 27, 1969 on the landlord of the said premises under section 351 read with section 352A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The plaintiff's contention in the present suit is twofold. First, that he, as a tenant, ill entitled to be served with a notice under the said sections. That contention is to be found in para. 2 of the plaint. Secondly, it is submitted in para. 3 of the, plaint that tenancy right being an interest in property, both under the Transfer of Property Act as well as under the Bombay Rent Act, within the meaning of article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the same without due process of law and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act are ultra vires the Constitution in sofa!' as 'there is no provision for giving notice to the tenants. 2. As far as the first contention is concerned, there is no substance in the same for the terms of section 351 are clear and unambiguous and provide for a notice under that section only having to be given to the person who is carrying on the unauthorized construction work in question or who is the owner of the building or the work in question. Section 352A is only a provision of an emergency nature consequential on section 351 and has no independent application. A notice under section 351 read with section 352A is, therefore, not required to be given to a tenant unless, in a given case, it is the tenant who is carrying out the unauthorised construction or work. The language of section 351 may be compared with the language of section 488 proviso (b), which require the giving of a notice to the occupier when, pursuant to the notice under section 351, the actual work of demolition is to be taken in hand by the Corporation, but that is not the stage with which I am concerned in the present case. This view which I have taken on a plain reading of the provisions of section 351 is supported by an unreported decision of K. K. Desai J. in Jagannath Tatyaba Khade v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay1, though in the said decision the learned Judge has not, in terms, referred to the language of that section. As against that decision, the learned advocate for the respondents sought to rely on two unreported decisions of Bal J. one in Durvasasingh Rajkishore Singh v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay2 and the other in Amarnath Ramnaresh Singh v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay3 but, I am afraid, those decisions do not lay dowi1 that a notice is required to be given under section 351 to a tenant who is not himself carrying out the unauthorised work. I fail to see how those decisions can have any application to the question which I am now considering. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff does not have even a prima facie case on this point to entitle him to interlocutory relief at the hands of the Court. 3. As far as the second contention is concerned, it has now been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Corporation v. Pancham4 that a tenant has, both under the Transfer of Property Act as well as under section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, an interest in the demised premises which squarely falls within the expression 'property' occuring in sub-clause (f) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution. Though the said case did not relate to the provisions of section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, those observations would be equally applicable to the question that has been raised in para. 3 of the plaint in the present case viz., whether section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is ultra vires Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution by reason of the fact that it makes no provision for the giving of notice to a tenant of the premises in question. 3 of the plaint in the present case viz., whether section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is ultra vires Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution by reason of the fact that it makes no provision for the giving of notice to a tenant of the premises in question. Under the circumstances, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bombay Corporation's case, and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff claims to be a tenant' of the suit premises, I must hold that the plaintiff has certainly a prima facie case in· regard to his challenge to the vires of section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. That being the position, the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction sought in prayer (a) of the Motion. I, therefore, confirm the order made by the Court below and dismiss this appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.