JUDGMENT Heard finally, by consent. 2. The Appellants-original Plaintiffs have challenged order dated 19 November 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court Bombay, whereby in a Suit filed by them the declaration is sought that notices dated 28 August 2013 and 25 October 2013, are bad in law, null and void and arbitrary, whereby the Respondent-Corporation offered them alternate accommodation on ground floor of Municipal Market on plot bearing C.T.S. No. 1293, 1293/1 to 5, 1294/3 to 7 and 657/A part of village Kanjur at Kanjur Marg. However, that was subject to deposit of 6 months stallage charges to be deposited within 15 days. It is specifically provided that “you shall provide internal brick masonry walls, electric wiring etc. at your own cost if necessary, only after issuance of final Letter of allotment”. 3. The Appellants objected the same by filing reply dated 8 October 2013. However by order dated 25 October 2013, in view of their alleged policy of MCGM, directed to pay the necessary charges as per the demand made, failing which threatened to demolish the structures. The Appellants have been in possession of the premises on the land of Corporation since long. By the notice/action, the Respondents-Corporation have recognized their rights and therefore, offered to provide them alternate accommodation, though not in the same location, but in an area which is about 3 Km. away from the existing structures. 4. The matter was adjourned, for the Appellants to consider the policy, as well as, their offer so made. However, it appears that the Appellants are not willing to accept the offer/alternate accommodation so offered to these 23 commercial structures which are going to be affected in a beautification of Shivaji Talao, Bhandup (West) in 'S” Ward. The basic terms and conditions are as under:- “1) That the PAPs shall pay Standing Deposit equivalent to 6 months stallage charges. 2) That the PAPs shall pay monthly stallage charges at the prevailing rate, which is presently Rs.12.50/- per sq. ft. per month. 3) That allotment shall be purely as a licensee of Market Dept and not on tenancy or ownership basis. 4) That the PAPs shall construct their stall/shop including internal brick masonary wall, provide shutter, electric fittings etc. entirely at their own cost. 5) That the PAPs shall abide with all the terms and conditions in force. ft. per month. 3) That allotment shall be purely as a licensee of Market Dept and not on tenancy or ownership basis. 4) That the PAPs shall construct their stall/shop including internal brick masonary wall, provide shutter, electric fittings etc. entirely at their own cost. 5) That the PAPs shall abide with all the terms and conditions in force. The PAPs shall give an undertaking on Rs.200/- stamp paper towards faithful compliance of the terms & conditions, rules & regulations of the Market Deptt. 6) That the eligibility and area to be allotted has been confirmed by Asstt. Commissioner 'S' ward, Market Deptt. Accept it as correct and shall not be held responsible for any lapse therein.” 5. The submission is made first of all that the alleged policy is prepared on 28 August 2013 by modifying the earlier PAP (Project Affected Person) policies dated 25 March 2013 and 28 March 2013. Here they are not taken even 25% cost of construction from PAP. In any way, the offer so made is not acceptable to the Appellants. The validity of such policy, just cannot be gone into at this stage of the proceedings specially when the scope and power of Court to interfere with such policy is quite limited. The remedy is elsewhere. 6. The Court needs to consider, in this background, the submission so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants that the impugned order/action so initiated by the Corporation is totally against the basic principles of law without giving fair and equal opportunity. The reliance is accordingly placed upon the Judgments of this Court in Sopan Maruti Thopte Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (1996(1) Mh. L. J. 963)and Abdul Hasan Shaikh Mansuri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Ors. (2007(2) Bom. C.R. 804). All these judgments are in the matters where the Corporation had issued the notice of demolition/eviction by treating the structure unauthorized as contemplated under Sections 351(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Section 260, 260(1) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and related provisions. 7. From the plain reading of the Notices, as well as, the submissions so made and going through the policy and the order so passed, it is clear that the Corporation is not invoking this provision to demolish and vacate the unauthorized premises. 7. From the plain reading of the Notices, as well as, the submissions so made and going through the policy and the order so passed, it is clear that the Corporation is not invoking this provision to demolish and vacate the unauthorized premises. On the contrary, they are offering alternate accommodations to all these commercial structures, which are admittedly on the Corporation land but owned by them, since more than 20 years. The question of development and/or modification, if within the scope and power, subject to providing alternate accommodation and/or accommodating them at the appropriate place, the Corporation is entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 8. Having once recognized the existence of commercial structures and offered them to provide alternate accommodations, I see there is no reason to overlook the stand and the steps taken by the Corporation. It is difficult to accept the case that they have not following the due procedure of law. The notices were given and directed them to deposit certain amount so that the letter of allotment of alternate accommodation can be provided immediately. Inspite of offer given, the Appellants failed to take steps and/or deposit money. The directions to demolish the structure, in my view, cannot be stated to be without due notice and/or not following the procedure of law. 9. The concept of PAP, in my view, is wide enough to include such cases where the Corporation in this process providing alternate accommodate to the Appellants/owners of the commercial structures on the Corporation land. It is difficult to restrict the Corporation from taking possession of their own land when the question is about a beautification and/or development of the area. The balance needs to be struck by the occupants on the Corporation land and the Corporation to provide them alternate commercial structures. 10. The submission is also made by referring to the map of market where the Corporation have taken decision to provide the alternate accommodation. There is nothing in the policy and/or even the submission made that they will not be in a position to retain the area and the construction which they proposed to make on the structures. 10. The submission is also made by referring to the map of market where the Corporation have taken decision to provide the alternate accommodation. There is nothing in the policy and/or even the submission made that they will not be in a position to retain the area and the construction which they proposed to make on the structures. Though it is not the case of grant of tenancy and/or ownership and the allotment on the basis of licensor/licensee relationship of the market/area, in the present scenario, where the accommodation and/or area even not available in the city of Mumbai, the suggestion and/or demand, even if any, other than the offer so made, is just cannot be considered in such fashion. The Court even otherwise not competent to suggest the Corporation with regard to their policy. The Plaintiffs and/or persons are always at liberty to challenge those policies. But that in no way, sufficient at this stage, to deal with the beautification of Shivaji Talao and the proposed alternative accommodation. To accept and/or not to accept, is the Appellants choice, but no case is made out for any protection, as prayed in the Notice of Motion, basically which will effect the beautification in question. 11. The submission that the policy is at the instance of some politician and builder and/or based upon the extra consideration than law, is also not acceptable when the Corporation is showing their bonafide to provide them the commercial structures before taking possession of their land. 12. The certain documents like the policy is placed on record for the first time in Appeal from Order as the settlement was also discussed earlier. But it could not be finalized. These documents were not placed before the Trial Court. But considering the submission and in the background so referred above, I am inclined to make above observations to dispose of the present Appeal, as there is no case is made out to grant any ad-interim relief, as prayed. This in no way prevent the Appellants from taking appropriate steps for challenging the alleged policy, if any. No case is made out for ad-interim relief. 13. The liberty is granted, as a last chance, to the Appellants to deposit the money within 7 days from today, failing which the action so contemplated in the impugned notice/action, the Respondent-Corporation is free to take, in accordance with law. 14. No case is made out for ad-interim relief. 13. The liberty is granted, as a last chance, to the Appellants to deposit the money within 7 days from today, failing which the action so contemplated in the impugned notice/action, the Respondent-Corporation is free to take, in accordance with law. 14. Appeal from order is accordingly disposed of, so also the Civil Application. There shall be no order as to costs.