ORDER: Respondent waives service of notice. By consent heard learned Advocates Shri Saraogi and Mrs Joglekar at final hearing. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in L.C. Suit No. 405 of 2010, decided on 5/10/2013., whereby the learned City Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit with costs. 3. After compilation of copies of evidence and documents relied upon in the suit is filed, the appeal is heard finally. The facts, which are briefly stated are, that the plaintiff-appellant claimed lawful use and occupation of one hut outside the St. George Hospital, in the lane known as “St. George Galli, near G.P.O., Fort, Mumbai. The hut occupied by the plaintiff-appellant situated on the footpath adjoining the hospital. It was claim of the plaintiff that it was in existence since many years and since prior to the year 1990. He also claimed that there was separate number given as ‘Shop No. 1’ to that hut. The plaintiff also claimed possessing the documentary evidence, such as election card, ration card, driving licence contending that his family used to reside and conduct business of selling sugarcane juice and other eatables, after having obtained licence under the Shops and Establishment Act. 4. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, without issuance of notice, the defendant – Mumbai Municipal Corporation (“Corporation” for short), had demolished the said hut even while the suit was pending in the Bombay City Civil Court. The issue in the suit was whether demolition work undertaken by the Corporation was illegal / bad in law and whether the plaintiff was entitled to reconstruction of the suit premises, as also about the want of pre-suit statutory notice u/s 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The learned trial judge, it appears that, considering the legal provisions regarding permission for construction required to be obtained under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence led before him, that suit structure was situated on footpath and, therefore, action taken on behalf of the defendant-Corporation to demolish the same was legal. The grievance on behalf of the plaintiff – appellant is that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-Corporation demolished the suit structure without following the due process of law. The grievance on behalf of the plaintiff – appellant is that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-Corporation demolished the suit structure without following the due process of law. As according to the learned advocate for the plaintiff, notice u/s 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act or u/s 53 of the MRTP Act could have been issued or u/s 314 of the Municipal Corporation Act, as defendant may deem it fit, in the facts of the case. But that was not done and even while the suit remained pending, drastic action of demolition was taken by the corporation. 5. The learned advocate, representing the Municipal Corporation, submitted with reference to the written notice; by arguments on behalf of the defendant that notice dated 7/8/2010 was issued by Corporation prior to demolition of the hut. It is also contended that documents were required from the plaintiff and he was informed by letter dated 16/1/2010 that his hut is not eligible for granting alternate accommodation and he was instructed to vacate the same and it will be demolished by the Corporation. At the glance of the evidence recorded by the trial court, particularly when the plaintiff was under cross-examination, it does appear that the plaintiff was not granted any permission by the Municipal Corporation to construct the hut and also the fact that the hut was situated on the footpath, which was meant to be used by pedestrians for way. Looking to the evidence, it appears that hut of the plaintiff, even though it was situated on footpath and constructed without permission of the corporation was tolerated for many years. During those long years, the plaintiff could obtain ration card, election voter’s card, licence under Shops and Establishments Act etc., at the address claimed by him. If the plaintiff was in possession of such documents showing his prolonged occupation and user of the hut structure, assuming that it was situated on footpath, he was at least entitled for notice according to law and an opportunity to show cause, if the Corporation intended to demolish the structure. Even assuming urgency, in such case, notice u/s 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act could have been given before taking drastic action of demolition of the structure, obstructing the public street or footpath etc. 6. Even assuming urgency, in such case, notice u/s 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act could have been given before taking drastic action of demolition of the structure, obstructing the public street or footpath etc. 6. It is not the case of the plaintiff that after dismissal of the suit by the trial court, he should be allowed to continue on the same footpath by raising new structure without obtaining written permission from the Corporation. What is submitted is that the plaintiff is entitled to make written representation, informing the Corporation of the documents in his possession as also showing the length of the period for which suit structure was existed so as to pray municipal authorities to consider his representation and to accommodate him at some place in the city, so that he can lead peaceful life along with his family. 7. The learned advocate representing the Corporation is unable to furnish the details regarding the nature of action which was undertaken before demolishing the suit structure. As the learned advocate could not pin point as to under which section notice was issued against the plaintiff before demolition of the structure on the ground that it was situated on footpath. Under these circumstances ,I feel it would be in the interest of justice, if plaintiff is permitted to make a written representation to the Assistant Municipal Commissioner along with all attested copies of documents in his possession within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, so that Assistant Municipal Commissioner or competent municipal authority concerned can consider the representation on humanitarian ground as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the case as far as possible to provide alternate accommodation to the plaintiff. Any order in this regard, providing or not providing alternate accommodation to the plaintiff shall be served as a reasoned order, considering the facts and circumstances, in evidence recorded by the trial court in this case, and also the documents which were produced in support of the representation. The reasoned order be communicated in writing to the plaintiff within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of such order. 8. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to take appropriate action according to law after the order as mentioned above is communicated. In view of this order, nothing further is required to be done in this appeal. 8. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to take appropriate action according to law after the order as mentioned above is communicated. In view of this order, nothing further is required to be done in this appeal. The first appeal as well as the Civil Application No. 162 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly.