JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is directed against order and judgment dated 31.8.2004 in L.C.Suit No.3951 of 1999 delivered by the learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, at Mumbai, whereby the suit was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that it was a suit filed by the plaintiff /appellant in the City Civil Court with prayer for declaration that notice issued to him under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, bearing no.KW/BF-I/397/354-A of 1999-2000 dated 5.7.1999. The notice was issued in respect of room admeasuring about 21' x 19' with a mezzanine floor constructed with B.M.Walls and A.C.Sheet roof situated at Room No.1, Philip Misquitta Chawl, Milan Subway Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400 054, as illegal, improper, bad in law and not enforceable. Plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction seeking to restrain Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises pursuant to the aforesaid notice. It was contended that the plaintiff / appellant's father had acquired suit premises on tenancy basis since prior to 1960 and then plaintiff became tenant paying monthly rent to defendant no.2 – landlord, while the suit premises stood in the name of father of the plaintiff. The main crux of the controversy is that during inspection by the Assistant Engineer, K /West Ward and H / West Ward, they found unauthorized construction going on at the suit premises and thus the impugned notice was issued pursuant to inspection dated 7.7.1999. That is why, after receiving notice, plaintiff decided to institute the present suit challenging the suit notice on various grounds. Landlord, who came to know about this pending suit took out Chamber summons to join as party defendant, which was allowed on 18.9.2002 by the trial court. Thus, landlord is also party defendant and opposed relief claimed by the plaintiff as against the impugned notice. 3. The learned trial Judge after framing issues in respect of legality of the notice dated 5.7.1999, as also about pre suit statutory notice, required to be issued under Section 527 of BMC Act, considered the issues framed, in the light of the evidence and ultimately chose to dismiss the suit. My attention is invited to the recorded evidence. The evidence recorded do not disclose any permission for construction or repairs / permanent repairs of the suit premises, as required under Section 347 of the Act. My attention is invited to the recorded evidence. The evidence recorded do not disclose any permission for construction or repairs / permanent repairs of the suit premises, as required under Section 347 of the Act. The plaintiff in plain terms admitted as follows:- “I did not obtain any permission for construction of mezzanine floor in the year 1999” thus indicating that the construction of the mezzanine floor which was found by the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation going on, was unlawful and unauthorized construction, and therefore notice under Section 354A was issued. 4. According to defendant no.2 – landlord, the tenancy premises let out were only admeasuring 10' x 10', but they were unauthorizedly extended by the appellant / plaintiff by means of unauthorized and illegal construction. The plaintiff admitted as follows:- “the mezzanine floor in question has not been shown in the suit structure in the said rough sketch (annexed with the plaint). The rough sketch annexed to the plaint is taken on record and marked as Exhibit “O” since, referred in the cross examination and admitted by witness.” 5. Thus, looking to the entire evidence led, the learned trial Judge found that the construction sought to be protected was without obtaining any prior permission according to law under Section 347 of the Act, in respect of which stop work notice was issued and served upon the plaintiff. The evidence also indicated that in the guise of interim injunction of 10.4.1999, the plaintiff completed / executed the work of construction of mezzanine floor in the structure to the height of about 20 feet. The plaintiff was found guilty of abuse of process of law and not entitled to any permanent injunction as prayed for, due to construction carried out unlawfully and in an unauthorized manner of the mezzanine floor without any sanctioned plan from the Municipal Corporation. That being so, when it was found that the suit construction was unauthorized, contrary to law, in respect of which stop work notice was issued, illegal construction could not have been protected. More so, when such act on the part of the plaintiff was also attracting penal provisions, as it was contrary to law within the meaning of Section 475-A and continuing offence if construction is not removed. More so, when such act on the part of the plaintiff was also attracting penal provisions, as it was contrary to law within the meaning of Section 475-A and continuing offence if construction is not removed. It is duty of the Municipal Corporation when it is found that erection of any construction is unlawfully going on, it has to be stopped by issuance of stop work notice under Section 354-A of the BMC Act. If, there is no stoppage of work, by the person offending municipal law, then such unauthorized construction or work has to be removed with the help of police by drawing panchnama. That being so, such construction which was carried on contrary to law, despite notice under Section 354-A, do not deserve any protection. 6. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 7. The learned advocate for the appellant prayed for stay to this order. The operation of this order be kept in abeyance until expiry of period of eight weeks.