1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.53 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2009 Iqbal Adamji Merchant and anr. : Appellants versus Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and ors. : Respondents. Mr A S Uraizee with Mr M V Singh for the Appellants. Smt. K K Soraan for the Respondents No.1-BMC. Mr M M Vashi i/by M/s. M P Vashi & Associates for the Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 2nd December 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay by which order the Notice of Motion No.1602 of 2005 filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs came to be rejected. 2. The Appellants/Plaintiffs filed L C Suit No. 1886 of 2005 on 2 the basis that their father one Adamji Jivaji Merchant was the lessee by way of Lease Agreement executed by the Municipal Corporation in his favour on 28th September 1949. The reliefs sought for in the said Suit and the Notice of Motion are as regards the redevelopment of the property known as Adamji Jiwaji Chawl along with another property known as Sitabai Chawl and the grant of permanent alternate accommodation to the Defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they became aware of the redevelopment of the suit property pursuant to a news item published in daily “Asian Age” on 4th November 2002. It is further the case of the Plaintiffs in the said suit that the procedure under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for termination of the lease has not been followed. 4. In so far as 1st aspect is concerned, the trial Court was of the view that the after the Plaintiffs became aware of the redevelopment of the property on 4th November 2002, the suit filed as on 16th April 2005 i.e after three years of the news item was belated. 3 In so far as proceedings under Section 105-B of the BMC Act is concerned, the trial Court held that the order has been passed by the competent authority of the Respondent No.1-Corporation on 8th September 1999 terminating the lease and therefore the Plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case. 6. It would be significant to note that the scheme of redevelopment has already been executed and completed and the Defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7 have already been put in possession. The property has therefore undergone change and a multi storeyed building has come in the place of the said Sitabai Chawl. 7. I have perused the reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs in said the Notice of Motion. In view of the aforesaid conspectus of facts, none of the reliefs which are sought for in the notice of motion, in my view, can be granted at this point of time 4 8. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order, the said reasons, in my view, cannot be faulted with. The above Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.98 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. 10. At this stage, Mr. Uraizee, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Plaintiffs prays for continuation of the ad-interim order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court dated 19th December 2008. The roznama of the trial Court indicates that the said order was to operate till 14th January 2009. Thereafter there has been no continuation. Hence the prayer is refused. [R.M.SAVANT, J]