1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 168 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 168 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 168 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4684 OF 2006 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 5554 OF 2005 Smtl Gangidevi wd/o Shobhanath Yadav & Ors. ..Appellants (Org. Plaintiffs) Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents (Org. Defendants) Mr. Deepak Thakore, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Sureshg Dubey, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. V.Y.Sanglikar with Ms. Nilima Sanglikar,Advocates for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. 2 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They were tenants of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 in the suit premises for last about 50 years. 2. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 5, who are the lessors, submitted a plan for demolition and reconstruction of the building making provision for allotment of accommodation to the plaintiffs in the building to be constructed by them. The plan was sanctioned and commencement certificate was issued. The plaintiffs filed the suit challenging the legality of the commencement certificate and also sought perpetual injunction to stop further work or to direct the Municipal Corporation not to grant further commencement certificate. The plaintiffs also took out a Notice of Motion seeking to restrain the defendant No.1 - Municipal Corporation from demolishing the premises of the plaintiffs i.e. shop Nos. 7 and 8. 3. The trial Court dismissed the Notice of Motion observing that according to the plaintiffs themselves, the suit shops are falling in road line. The other tenants have already vacated the premises. The development has been held up only because the present 3 plaintiffs are not willing to vacate the suit shops and have filed the suit. The trial Court noted that the Municipal Corporation had passed the order under the MRTP Act and in view of the authority of this Court in Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Municipal Corporation of Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Municipal Corporation of Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & another 2005(4) Bom.C.R.577 Greater Bombay & another 2005(4) Bom.C.R.577 Greater Bombay & another 2005(4) Bom.C.R.577, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal against the dismissal of Notice of Motion by the trial Court. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order, I find no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed summarily. 5. At this stage, after taking instructions from his client, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants seeks four weeks’ time to remove themselves from the suit premises. The learned Counsel for the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 has no objection subject to their filing an undertaking. Subject to the plaintiffs/appellants filing their undertaking within two weeks from this day that they shall peacefully and without any obstruction remove themselves from the suit property. The notice for demolition in respect of the suit premises shall not be implemented for four weeks 4 from this day. 6. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)