:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.778 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.778 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.778 OF 2007 Mr.Pramod Kumar Shejwadkar ...Appellant. v. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Other ...Respondents. Mr.H.S.Anand , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.S.P.Thorat , adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 13th February, 2008. DATE: 13th February, 2008. DATE: 13th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The appellant, who is original plaintiff is son of one Kusum Shejwadkar, who was said to be living as tenant in Seth Mahal Building. According to her, she was given warning notice to vacate the premises and accordingly, she vacated the said tenement and was provided transit accommodation in the building of MHADA firstly at Vikroli and thereafter at Mahim. In the year 1976 the MHADA authorities also entered into an agreement with the deceased mother of the appellant to provide alternate accommodation and thereafter in the year 2001, the MHADA authorities issued notice to vacate the transit accommodation at Vikroli. Later on, she filed the suit seeking interim relief, which was refused. Therefore, she had preferred Appeal From Order No.951 of 2005. While disposing off the above Appeal From Order No.951 of 2005, this Court had in the order :2: dated 21st December, 2005 noted that the MHADA had filed an affidavit in the proceedings of the Deputy Engineer, admitting that the appellant was residing in Room No.8 of the building in question and the warning notice was issued to her in 1976. It appears that now the MHADA Authorities have taken a stand that the said warning notice itself was forged. They also denied agreement. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has pointed out that the Chief Officer, MHADA Repair Board has observed that he had come to the conclusion that the warning notice was forged because the copy of this notice is not available in the office record of MHADA. After the claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the Chief Officer, she filed the Suit No.3184 of 2007 wherein she had taken out Notice of Motion but that Notice of Motion is rejected on the ground that the said warning notice and the agreement are forged. Hence, this appeal. 2. After perusal of the record, it appears that MHADA authorities have taken inconsistent stand in respect of claim of the present appellant while in the affidavit filed in the proceeding by the Deputy Engineer as noted by this Court in its order dated 21st December, 2005, it was admitted that MHADA had issued warning notice to Kusum Shejwadkar in 1976 and by that notice, she was required to vacate the premises and now the MHADA authorities have taken a stand that the notice on :3: which the plaintiff relies is forged one and the ground for taking this stand is that copy of the notice is not available in the office of MHADA. Admittedly, since 1976, the plaintiff was residing in the transit accommodation provided by MHADA. If alleged notice is forged and if no agreement had taken place, it is difficult to understand how the MHADA had provided the transit accommodation to her. Taking into consideration these circumstances and the inconsistent stand taken by the MHADA, it appears that claim of the plaintiff needs to be carefully scrutinised at the time of final hearing. 3. According to the MHADA, building in which the plaintiff was previously residing was repaired by its owner and in 1978 that building was sold away to one Shetty. That building is in good condition and is being used by its occupants. According to MHADA, plaintiff was a tenant in that building, therefore, her claim of accommodation after repairs will be only against that landlord and not against the MHADA. Taking into consideration this stand, in my considered opinion, it will be necessary to implead owner of that building also by making appropriate amendment in the plaint. 4. In view of the above observations, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is hereby set aside. Notice of Motion is allowed with direction that the possession of :4: the plaintiff in the transit accommodation shall not be disturbed by MHADA authorities till pending the S.C.Suit No.3184 of 2007. Plaintiff shall make necessary amendment in the plaint and implead owner of the building in which the Kusum was previously tenant, within two weeks from this day. The trial Court shall try to expedite hearing after filing written statements and shall dispose off the suit preferably within six months. 5. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)