JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - Heard Advocates for the parties. Perused the papers. The petitioner challenges notice dated 28-9-2000 issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to carry out the repairs to the building premises No. 116, Kharate House, situate at Worli Koliwada, Mumbai 400 025, which is owned by the petitioner. The sole ground on which the impugned notice is challenged is that the structure stated to have been situated on the passage towards the western side of the building causes obstruction for carrying out the said repairs to the building and that the said structure is illegal structure to the knowledge of the Corporation, besides being the fact that the Corporation itself has allotted another area in exchange of the said structure and the respondent No. 2 has not removed the said structure nor the Corporation has taken any action for removal of the said structure. 2. In the course of the hearing of the matter the learned Advocate for the petitioner, however fairly conceded that the petitioner has already commenced the repair works and the same is in progress. However he further submitted that it cannot be completed more particularly in relation to the portion facing western side of the building on account of the said structure in question. He further submitted that the petitioner would complete the repairs to the building by 30th April, 2004. 3. As far as the grievance of the petitioner in relation to the structure being causing obstruction to carry out repairs to the building is concerned undisputedly there are no materials placed on record as to how the suit structure being a cause for obstruction to the repairs to the building. However, it was orally submitted across the bar that obstruction is caused in relation to free unity to the building and that the petitioner would face difficulty in directing props for carrying out repairs to the building on the western side thereof. However, admittedly neither any affidavit in that regard nor even a report of any engineer or a person engaged in the business of carrying out repairs to the building has been placed on record in support of any such contention. It is not the case of the petitioner that he himself is either engineer or has experience in carrying out the repairs to the building. It is not the case of the petitioner that he himself is either engineer or has experience in carrying out the repairs to the building. In the absence of any cogent material in support of the allegations by the petitioner in that regard apart from the fact that the same is a disputable question of fact and this Court has no expertise in the matter in question. It is not possible to adjudicate the said issue in the writ petition. 4. At the same time admittedly repairs to the building are in progress and the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that repairs would be completed by 30th April, 2004. Added to this it is the case of the petitioner himself that the structural engineer by report dated 17th March, 2000 had pointed out various defects in the structure including in RCC columns and beams as well as cracks having been developed in RCC slab. Apparently, no fault can be found with the notice issued by the Corporation requiring the petitioner to carry out the repairs. The report submitted by the structural engineer of the petitioner himself justifies such direction for repairs. As regards the grievance about the obstruction on account of the said structure to carry out repairs, there is no cogent material in support of such contention on behalf of the petitioner. Being so there is no case for interference in the impugned notice in writ jurisdiction. 5. As regards the grievance of the petitioner pertaining to the failure on the part of the Corporation to take action against respondent No. 2 for removal of the structure, the very structure is stated to have been in existence in the passage on the western side of the building. Undoubtedly if the structure violates any of the rights of the petitioner, he will have to seek necessary reject through the normal civil remedy against the respondent No. 2 and in case the grievance is in the public interest, then the petitioner has to seek enforcement of obligation of the Corporation in relation to the alleged illegal structure by way of writ petition before the Division Bench. 6. 6. For the reasons stated above and in view of the statement by the Advocate for the petitioner repairs to the building will be completed by 30th April, 2004 while allowing the petitioner to complete the said repairs within the said period, no further reliefs can be granted in this petition to the petitioner. The petition fails and is dismissed with the above observations with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----