In a special civil suit against the UMC, Renu has charged the corporation and a junior engineer in the erstwhile council with permitting a promoter Devandas Chugh to construct a building, Sai Kripa Apartments, on barrack No 190 at Camp 1, after demolishing rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4 without her permission. She has also claimed Rs 21 lakh as compensation.

Renu alleges that V D Gosavi, then a junior engineer in the Town Planning Department, sanctioned the construction after her husband submitted an affidavit relinquishing ownership of all four rooms. Renu, however, points out that the title deeds of the property indicate thatrooms 1 and 2 stand in her name while her husband owned the other two.

``This was done in spite of the fact that my husband, with whom I have differences, owns only rooms 3 and 4,'' she told Express Newsline.

She and her husband have long-standing differences, she says, explaining: ``I work as nurse with the Central Railway and my husband and I clashed over my decision not to quit my job despite being posted at the CR hospital in Byculla. Though we have reconciled, he has also been sent a legal notice besides the 12 other tenants in the building.''

Despite their differences, the Ahujas share a flat in Sai Kripa Apartments, which was constructed in 1981-83 when the civic body was still a municipal council. Its status was upgraded to a corporation in October 1996.

Questioning Gosavi's intentions, Renu points out: ``I had not given permission for the construction. Nor have I given my husband power of attorney. How then could a commencement certificate (dated March 30, 1981) have been issued forrooms 1 and 2?''

In her suit, she also asks how a junior engineer could sanction permission for construction without consulting higher authorities.

Located off a busy lane which approaches the Sadhu Bela School in Camp 1, the four-storey building is located on a plot admeasuring 427 sq mt. It comprises 12 flats and seven shops. Real estate agents peg the property's current market value at Rs 25 lakh, says Renu.

But how has the UMC reacted to the litigation? Save for issuing Gosavi a show cause notice, it has precious little. Confirming that he has received the notice, Gosavi told Express Newsline, ``I acted on the basis of the affidavit provided by Tikamdas Ahuja,'' asking whether (Tikamdas) Ahuja would be willing to take responsibility for trying to ``mislead'' the civic body through a ``wrong affidavit''.

He also alleges that the Ahujas are trying to ``make money out of a small error'' on his part, adding that the marital discord is a mere smokescreen. ``Otherwise, why would she have given up herquarters provided by the railways and choose to live with her husband,'' he asks.

Tikamdas, however, maintains that he has differences with his wife. ``We have still not been able to reconcile on issues like this property matter,'' he says, refusing to explain why it took so long for the couple to initiate action against Gosavi. Adds Renu: ``We kept trying to get the administration and the councillors/corporators to do something but had to finally approach the court when everything else failed.''

UMC Commissioner A D Kale says the law will take its own course, adding, ``I cannot make any remarks without apprising myself of the details of the case.''