JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arose out of judgment and order dated 7.3.2008 in L.C.Suit No.4016 of 1998 which was dismissed by learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court. It was a suit for declaration filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) on the ground that notice issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 15.11.1997 under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act, bearing no.ABSI/65/351/Bldg., 9798 issued in respect of the structure covering open space on the ground floor with C.I. Angles Frame and G.I.Sheet over it, at 4, Pandey Road, Opposite Hotel Supreme, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005, is illegal, void, and for restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking action of removal or demolition of the suit structure pursuant to the notice. It appears that the plaint was also exhaustively amended during the pendency of the suit on the ground that plaintiff have documents issued in the name of previous owner of the property to establish long standing existence of suit structure, while challenging the alleged unauthorized user of the premises as alleged by Municipal Corporation. It appears that the Municipal Corporation, regarding the alleged unauthorized user, had requested predecessor in title of the plaintiff M/s.Najoo Investments Co. Ltd. to produce authentic documentary evidence regarding the alleged unauthorized user of covered passage admeasuring 17 feet x 9.9 feet adjoining the building. 2. It appears that the trial court, after considering the evidence and copies of documents, observed in concluding paragraph of the judgment as follows : “8 The plaintiff in support of his claim has placed reliance on the Circular bearing no.CE/30054/11 OF 2/12/80. Now from the facts of the present case it appears that the plaintiff has erected shed in the open space and the same is admeasuring 8’ x 40”. If he wants to get the said structure regularized, he is at liberty to do so. However, only on the basis of this Circular, it cannot be said that the notice dated 15th November, 1997 and order passed on 6th January, 1998 are illegal. Hence, I answer points 2 and 3 in the negative and pass the following order : ORDER Suit is dismissed.” 3. The plaintiff in support of his claim has placed reliance on the Circular bearing no.CE/30054/11 of 2.12.1980. Hence, I answer points 2 and 3 in the negative and pass the following order : ORDER Suit is dismissed.” 3. The plaintiff in support of his claim has placed reliance on the Circular bearing no.CE/30054/11 of 2.12.1980. While observing that the plaintiff had erected a shed in the open space admeasuring 8 feet x 40 feet and that if he wanted to get the said structure regularized, he was at liberty to so, rejected the contention regarding the legality and validity of the notice from the plaintiff’s side. 4. Thus the trial court in the impugned judgment held against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit notice dated 15.11.1997 and order dated 6.1.1998 is either void, illegal or liable to be set aside. In the result therefore, permanent injunction as prayed for to restrain the Municipal Corporation from taking action in respect of the suit structure on the basis of notice, was refused. 5. This court at interim stage, while passing order dated 6.10.2008 in Civil Application No.4621 of 2008, refused to grant injunction prayed for on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff on the ground that there is no prima facie material to show that the suit structure is authorized, nor there is any material on record to show that the suit structure was erected prior to the datum line. This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25515 of 2008 was decided on 24.11.2009 by an order as below mentioned : “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the interim order passed in F.A. No.1881 of 2008. We are not inclined to interfere with the interim order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that whatever unauthorised construction can be regularised, according to the rules, may be regularised on payment of penalty and fine and he undertakes to remove the remaining unauthorised construction forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. During the pendency of the appeal, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. No further directions are necessary to be passed in this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, disposed of.” Thus, this court was requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. No further directions are necessary to be passed in this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, disposed of.” Thus, this court was requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 6. I have perused the evidence led in the trial court. According to witness Dayashankar Yadav, examined in trial court as PW2, who is supervisor in the plaintiff’s hotel since 1987, stated that about 78 feet open space in front of the hotel was covered by sheets of the shed, before Shri Yadav joined the hotel. The open space on the right side of the hotel is admeasuring about 10 feet in width and 40-50 feet in length. This open space appears to have been covered by sheets of the shed by putting tar on it. While according to the plaintiff/appellant he purchased the hotel in 1978, he had not produced any IOD, photograph of the suit structure, or assessment record. According to affidavit filed in support of the suit, plaintiff/appellant contended that municipal taxes were recovered regularly and paid from time to time. He also gave history of his title to the premises or hotel, as also license issued and renewed from time to time. According to the plaintiff/appellant, he had requested for personal hearing in the matter, while he had challenged suit notice as improper, illegal and malafide. 7. The suit notice which was addressed to the plaintiff/appellant on 15.11.1997 issued from Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, had called upon the plaintiff/appellant to show sufficient cause as to why unauthorized covering of open space with C.I. Angles frame and G.I.Sheets shown in the sketch of the notice should not be removed or pulled down on the ground that it is unauthorized or illegal building or construction. The plaintiff/appellant appearing through Advocate J.P.Vyas, gave reply dated 26.11.1997 disputing the contents of the notice and seeking to rely upon certain documents, as also seeking personal hearing in the matter. Municipal Corporation by order dated 6.1.1998 bearing no.WOA/33890/Bldg. issued by Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone I, passed the order directing the plaintiff/appellant to remove the unauthorized construction failing which it would be demolished by A Ward Staff, at the risk of the plaintiff and at the plaintiff’s cost without further intimation. 8. Municipal Corporation by order dated 6.1.1998 bearing no.WOA/33890/Bldg. issued by Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone I, passed the order directing the plaintiff/appellant to remove the unauthorized construction failing which it would be demolished by A Ward Staff, at the risk of the plaintiff and at the plaintiff’s cost without further intimation. 8. After considering the documents referred above, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was at liberty to move for regularization. However, the fact that suit structure is unauthorized appears to have been concluded by evidence on record, as the plaintiff/appellant could not establish predatum existence i.e. existence of the suit structure since prior to 1.4.1962. In other words, since the construction in respect of which suit notice was addressed to the plaintiff was found without any sanctioned plan, the decision to demolish the same was taken. 9. The only question that remains at the appellate stage of the suit is as to whether the suit structure is capable of being regularized by municipal corporation since according to plaintiff/appellant such similar structures in the open spaces were regularized in the past in some other cases. The learned advocate for the municipal corporation submitted that any application for regularization of the suit structure is required to be made in accordance with Development Control Rules of the Municipal Corporation and the proposal must also be supported by licensed architect with request for regularization thereof. It appears that in the Supreme court, counsel on behalf of the appellant made submission that whatever unauthorized construction can be regularized according to the rules may be regularized on payment of penalty and fine, while on behalf of the appellant undertaking was offered to remove remaining unauthorized construction forthwith. It was under these circumstances and facts, that this court was requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 10. Considering the controversy in the suit, the documents and the evidence has been considered by the trial court by giving cogent reasons. The only question that remains to be considered by the Municipal Corporation is as to whether the suit structure described in the suit notice as “unauthorized covering of open space of the building with C.I.Angles and frame and G.I.Sheets over it” as shown in the sketch, is capable of being regularized, in view of the current policy decision and circular of the Municipal Corporation. For this purpose, I think it is obligatory for the plaintiff/appellant to move proposal for regularization supported by any licensed architect and copies of documents, so that, Assistant Municipal Commissioner concerned for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay can apply his mind to the proposal which must also mention reasons as to why request for regularization is made, so that, such proposal can be considered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in the light of the instances cited for regularization, as also, in the light of prevalent policy decisions and circulars of the Municipal Corporation. 11. It is legitimately expected that that decision making authority of the Municipal Corporation will apply its mind to the proposal/representation, documents annexed with the proposal, so as to pass a reasoned order as to whether suit structure is capable of being regularized or not, and then to communicate such order to the plaintiff/appellant. It is also directed that till such decision is communicated, and till the lapse of 15 days thereafter, there shall be no coercive action as against suit structure, so that plaintiff/appellant can resort to appropriate remedy, in the event, decision given by the decision making authority of the Municipal Corporation is adverse against the appellant. It is desirable that any drastic action of demolition when considered essential must accompany with panchnama in writing to be referred to, if necessary in any prospective litigation, if undertaken again in respect of the immovable property concerned or the subject matter of the suit. 12. The written representation shall be made within one month with documents in support thereof with proposal from licensed architect. If such representation/proposal is received it shall be considered and reasoned order be passed in writing as to whether suit structure is capable of being regularized in accordance with prevalent policy decision and/or circulars of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation/Planning authority concerned. The decision making authority i.e. Assistant Municipal Commissioner to pass the reasoned order and to communicate the same within two months from the date of receipt of the representation/proposal. The demolition action if essential shall not follow till expiry of 15 days period from the date of communication of the order. 13. No orders as to costs. 14. Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.