JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the Notice dated 27th October, 2016 issued by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation under Section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and the consequent order dated 6th April, 2017 passed by Respondent No.1-the Designated Officer, Assistant Engineer (Building & Factory) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation for demolition of the subject structure. 3. As per the Petitioner, he is the owner of the said structure, which is a shop rented out to "Rina Tours and Travels". The said structure was purchased by the Petitioner's father on 6th February, 1991 by entering into a sale agreement. Since then the Petitioner is in occupation of the same. It is admeasuring about 10x10x10 sq.ft. and situated on ground floor adjoining to the building known as "Mahavir Mansion" situated in between Building Nos.122B and 132, Kika Street, Gulalwadi, Mumbai. 4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he is having the shop and establishment licence issued for the business of "Rina Tours and Travels" in the name of Tapan Kumar Jana. The Petitioner is also having the electricity and telephone bills issued on the said premises. On the receipt of the impugned Notice dated 27th October, 2016, the Petitioner has produced all this documentary evidence before Respondent No.1-Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation. However, despite that the Corporation/Designated Officer has ignoring the said documentary evidence passed the order of demolition of the said structure on count that it is illegal and unauthorized. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned notice issued under Section 55 of the MRTP Act is itself not legal and valid as his structure is permanent one and not a temporary one. Moreover, according to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1-Designated Officer has not considered the documents produced by him which clearly prove that his structure is legal and authorized. Hence according to him, the impugned notice and the order passed by Respondent No.1- Designated Officer needs to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for Respondents has supported the said notice and order by pointing out that the structure which the Petitioner has erected is totally un-authorized. It is temporary and not at all a permanent one. Hence according to him, the impugned notice and the order passed by Respondent No.1- Designated Officer needs to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for Respondents has supported the said notice and order by pointing out that the structure which the Petitioner has erected is totally un-authorized. It is temporary and not at all a permanent one. It is partly made of MS-sheet walls and covered with MS-sheet roof. The Petitioner is having no documentary evidence to prove that said structure was constructed after obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1-Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation has considered all the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence no interference is warranted in the same. 7. We have heard these rival submissions of learned counsels and with their assistance we have perused the impugned notice issued to the Petitioner, which shows that the subject structure is of semi permanent nature made of partly BM-sheet walls and partly MS-sheet walls. It is covered with MS-sheet roof. Whether the structure is temporary or permanent; it was for the Petitioner to show that he has constructed or erected the same after obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation and after getting the plan sanctioned for the same. The Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to prove the legality of the said structure. In response to the show cause notice issued to him, the Petitioner has approached Respondent No.1-Designated Officer and produced all the record/the documentary evidence which was in possession. 8. The perusal of the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1-Designated Officer reveals that he has considered all the documents, which were produced on record by the Petitioner and after properly considering the same found that none of the document prove that the structure is in existence since prior to the datum line or it was constructed with requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation after getting the plan sanction. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has relied upon the documents like the photocopy of the rent receipt which does not mention the description regarding authenticity of the suit structure. The Petitioner has then produced on record "Registration Certificate" under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act. However, it does not again mention the remarks regarding authenticity of the said structure. The Petitioner has then produced on record "Registration Certificate" under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act. However, it does not again mention the remarks regarding authenticity of the said structure. Similarly, the telephone or electricity bills on which the Petitioner has relied upon can not prove the legality or authenticity of the said structure. The Petitioner has not produced before Respondent No.1-Designated Officer or even before this Court any document prior to 1st April, 1962, which is the datum line for commercial structure to be considered in tolerated category. The Petitioner has not produced either before Respondent No.1-Designated Officer or before this Court any permission/approval from the Executive Engineer building proposal for erecting such structure. He has not even alleged that the said structure was constructed after obtaining requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. 9. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the subject structure is situated on the open space, which is in effect a path way to the adjoining buildings. The very description of the subject premises, as given by the Petitioner makes it clear that the structure is erected in between two buildings bearing Nos. 122B and 132. Thus, it is clearly obstructing the access to these two buildings. It is also pertinent to note that the structure is purely of a temporary make-shift nature. 10. Hence, taking into consideration totality of facts and circumstances, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, we do not find any grounds or reasons being made out to interfere with the impugned notice or the order. This Writ Petition, therefore, being without any merits, stands dismissed. 11. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.