ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 in L.C.Suit No.2597 of 2010 decided by City Civil Court, Mumbai, whereby the suit was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that the impugned notice issued by Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the Act on 22.3.2007 and the order dated 29.10.2010 are illegal, null and void, in the result the plaintiff was non-suited. Thus, appellant (original plaintiff) is in appeal. 2. Heard submissions at the bar. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant (original plaintiff) is tenant of shop which is subject matter of the notice. The shop was in existence since prior to 1962. It was taken on rent by the father of the appellant / plaintiff and appellant is carrying on business of his livelihood in the shop. It is grievance of the appellant that at the instance of owner / landlord of the premises, Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 351 of the Act earlier also, but it was withdrawn in L.C.Suit No.3266 of 1975 when learned advocate one Mr.Sandge made a statement under instructions of the then Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone I, that suit notice was withdrawn. That being so, the suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff / appellant on 8.12.1993. It is, thus, the case of the appellant / plaintiff that fresh notice for the same cause ought not to have been issued, when Municipal Corporation had withdrawn the action under Section 351 of the Act. Be that as it may. It is case of the appellant that notice dated 22.3.2007 bearing no.D/BLDG/JE12/351/2235/BF of 2007 regarding alleged unauthorized construction of structure with B.M.Walls, A.C.Sheet Roof, with wooden door admeasuring 14' x 7' as mentioned in the sketch, was directed to be removed. Appellant had shown cause against the notice by issuing reply through his advocate which was acknowledged on 29.3.2007 by the Municipal Corporation, as also another reply was acknowledged on 11.4.2007. But the order came to be passed on 29.10.2010 by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, D Ward, mentioning that only two documents were produced which according to Assistant Municipal Commissioner were not acceptable as authentic documents to prove authorization of the noticed structure. But the order came to be passed on 29.10.2010 by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, D Ward, mentioning that only two documents were produced which according to Assistant Municipal Commissioner were not acceptable as authentic documents to prove authorization of the noticed structure. It is case of the appellant that documents were produced and proved before the trial court to show long standing existence of suit structure since prior to 1.4.1962 to put forward the case that the structure belongs to tolerable category in view of the policy decisions and circulars of the Municipal Corporation. Although, appellant is not in possession of document as to who constructed the suit structure and whether it was constructed in accordance with the permission from the Municipal Corporation, since appellant claims as tenant of the suit structure and since landlord is interested to demolish the structure, landlord would never co-operate to prove that the structure is existing prior to datum line. 3. It is true that if structure is constructed without any written permission from the Municipal Corporation or without any sanctioned plan, it is termed as “unauthorized or illegal construction.” However, premises in possession of tenants, if they are having existence since years, and tenant is able to show long standing existence of the suit premises since prior to predatum line, in accordance with policy decisions and circulars of Municipal Corporation, the decision making authority of Municipal Corporation is required to pass a reasoned order by considering the documents produced by the noticee as to whether structure described in the notice is capable of being regularized or whether it is tolerable in accordance with prevalent circulars and decisions of Municipal Corporation. Therefore, considering the evidence led in this case, that plaintiff / appellant had also received notice long back in the year 1975, and assuming that the structure is in open space and if it is on private land and capable of being regularized for the time being, decision making authority on behalf of the Municipal Corporation can surely consider as to whether the suit structure can be tolerated for the time being, until owner / landlord would follow due process of law for eviction of the tenant. 4. 4. Therefore, I am of the opinion that plaintiff / appellant ought to have an opportunity to approach Assistant Municipal Commissioner concerned of the Municipal Corporation, with written representation and documents in support of such representation along with proposal of licensed architect. According to learned advocate for Municipal Corporation, proposal through licensed architect is required to be submitted before Executive Engineer (Building and Proposal Department) who will in turn communicate the proposal to regularize the suit structure or otherwise, to the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, as decision making authority, to decide whether the suit structure is capable of being regularized or tolerable. Appellant will take these steps to submit written representation with documents or copies thereof before the Assistant Municipal Commissioner within a period of one month, as also proposal through licensed architect to be submitted through Executive Engineer (Building and Proposal) before the decision making authority i.e. Assistant Municipal Commissioner. Assistant Municipal Corporation upon receiving the representation along with documents etc., shall within a period of Sixty (60) days, decide whether suit structure is tolerable and capable of being regularized and pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated in writing to the appellant. 5. There shall be no coercive action of demolition etc. till the lapse of one month after such order is communicated. 6. Appeal is allowed accordingly. 7. Judgment and order is modified accordingly. 8. Civil Application No.1700 of 2013 would not survive and stands disposed of.