Judgment 1. By this Appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad-hoc Judge Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in L.C. Suit No. 755 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit with cost. 2. The brief facts are that at the instance of the Bombay Port Trust, a complaint was made regarding existence of an unauthorized structure and/or illegal unauthorized extension of structure in the Indigo Hotel existed on the open space situated at Room No. 11, Galli of Phiroz Building, Steven Street, Ground Floor, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. The Appellant was purchaser-in-title of late Jyotiswarup Valmiki, who was working as Watchman appointed by the occupiers and landlord of the said Phiroz Building since many years. It is further contended that the landlord of the Phiroz Building had allowed late Shri Jotiswarup Valmiki to stay in the suit premises. It is contended that the Appellant are in possession of the documentary evidence such as ration card, electricity bill, voter I.D. Card etc. to prove their possession in the suit structure as occupiers. The impugned Notice was issued on 04.02.2006 under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, whereby the occupiers were directed to remove the unauthorized development i.e. unauthorized construction of room admeasuring 3.0 mtrs. X 1.65 meters with the height of 4.75 mtrs. on the open space/house galli with G.I. Sheet covering at Phiroz Building, Steven Street, Colaba, Mumbai - 05. The question as to whether the suit structure is in existence since 1962 or prior to the datum line i.e. 17th April, 1964, as observed by Trial Court in the said Judgment. The contention of the Appellant is that the suit notice issued under Section 527 of the Municipal Corporation Act as also legality and validity of the notice dated 04.02.2006 issued under section 55 of the MRTP Act, as recorded above, was considered in the light of the rulings cited by the parties and the trial Court decided the question as to whether the notice structure was in existence prior to 1962 and whether there was any earlier permission granted by the Municipal Corporation or by the Mumbai Port Trust for construction of the subject matter. The parties relied upon oral and documentary evidence including the documentary evidence. The parties relied upon oral and documentary evidence including the documentary evidence. The trial Court noted that Mumbai Port Trust already initiated proceedings under the Public Premises Act regarding unauthorized structure and unauthorized occupation of the buildings including the suit structure. The trial Court did not find any evidence produced by the Appellant to prove that the suit structure was in existence prior to the datum line i.e. 17th April, 1964. Under these circumstances, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had not adduced or produced any specific evidence to prove validity of the existence of the notice structure which was directed to be removed under the impugned order so as to prove its existence prior to 1962. Thus the notice issued under Section 55 of the MRTP Act by the Planning Authority was held to be legal and proper and the suit came to be dismissed with cost. 3. Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 reads thus: 55. Removal or discontinuance of unauthorized temporary development summarily : (1) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this Chapter, where any person has carried out any development of a temporary nature unauthorisedly as indicated in sub-section (1) of section 52, the Planning Authority may by an order in writing direct that person to remove any structure or work erected, or discontinue the use of land made, unauthorisedly as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the receipt of the order; and if thereafter, the person does not comply with the order within the said period, the Planning Authority may request the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, [or authorize any of its officers or servants] to have such work summarily removed or such use summarily discontinued without any notice as directed in the order, and any development unauthorisedly made again, shall be similarly removed or discontinued summarily without making any order as aforesaid. (2) The decision of the Planning Authority on the question of what is development of a temporary nature shall be final. This section begins with non-obstante clause and it operates irrespective of earlier provisions under Chapter IV of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. (2) The decision of the Planning Authority on the question of what is development of a temporary nature shall be final. This section begins with non-obstante clause and it operates irrespective of earlier provisions under Chapter IV of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966. Thus whenever it is found that any person has carried out illegal development of a temporary nature without any permission from the Planning Authority or not in accordance with any permission or in contravention of any permission such an act is an offence punishable under the Act by imprisonment for a term of one month which may extend upto three years with a fine which is minimum a sum of Rs.2000/- which may extend upto Rs.5000/-. Such unauthorized or illegal development is treated as continuing offence punishable with recurrent delay fine which may extend to Rs.200/-per day until the offence is continuing after conviction for the first offending act. In other words such offending act of unauthorized or illegal development of a temporary nature cannot be allowed to continue. The legislature, therefore, provides for action on the part of the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority may request the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or authorize any of its officers or servants to summarily remove such unauthorized and illegal temporary development without any notice and such action of the Planning Authority pursuant to its decision to remove unauthorized structure is the final in view of section 55(2) of the MRTP Act. Under these circumstances, really speaking the Plaintiff had no valid cause of action to question the notice issued to the Plaintiff from the Planning Authority under Section 55 of the MRTP Act. 4. The objection/ contention as regards want of pre-suit statutory notice under section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Act is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that the suit was filed upon apprehended act of demolition to prevent demolition of the suit structure by or on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and thus no pre-suit statutory notice could have been given as contemplated under Section 527 of the MMC Act nor was required to be given. Further more, since it appears that the action to remove the unauthorized structure/ development by the Planning Authority was initiated at the instance of the complaint by Mumbai Port Trust in respect of the structure situated on the plot in the compulsory open space on South West Side of the Phiroz building on water storage tank as also another unauthorized construction in the eastern side at the Phiroz Building, as stated by the Municipal Corporation in an Affidavit of Shri Dharmendra D. Kantharia, the Assistant Engineer (B & F) of A-Ward Municipal Office, Fort; Mumbai and as also considering the specific bar under section 149 of the MRTP Act in view of the finality of the orders passed by the Planning Authority or any competent Authority under the Act; the action by way of any suit or legal proceedings is not permissible. Considering the fact that there was no any legal scope for challenging the action as taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, as local Planning Authority, the suit itself was not maintainable. Even on merits it appears that trial court has answered all issues after application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at only logical and legal conclusion that was possible to dismiss the suit. No interference is required. I think entertaining and admitting this Appeal and keeping it pending for years together would be nothing but fruitless exercise and may amount to encourage pendency of the legal proceedings without any valid ground existing to admit this Appeal. No any other submission is advanced to my satisfaction as to why the Appeal need to be entertained. 5. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, nothing survives in the Civil Application No. 1471 of 2012 and the same is dismissed as such. 7. The learned Advocate for the Appellant at this stage prays for suspension of operation of this order for a period of twelve weeks. The request is opposed by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. Considering that the first Appeal is dismissed and disposed of by this order, the operation of this judgment and order shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today.