1 AO-824-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 824 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1089 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2001 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 1513 OF 2011 Sunil Babu Shigwan .. Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.G. Lad i/b. Ms. Aparna Murlidharan,Advocate, for the appellant Mrs. K.K.Soraan, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Anil C. Singh i/b. Mr. D.R.Shah, Advocate, for the Intervener. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 28th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against refusal of ad- interim relief pending the Notice of Motion. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant pointed out from the record that the plaintiff and his family are residing in a shed or hut within the compound of Cutchi Lohana Niwas Griha Mazgaon, Mumbai, at least since 1969. He also contends that when the said 2 AO-824-11.sxw building will be taken up for reconstruction, the appellant will also be entitled to accommodation under the Rehabilitation Scheme. On 2.5.2011, the appellant has made a representation to the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board in this respect. According to him, no decision has been taken so far. 3. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for owners and builders, had taken the property for redevelopment. The said owner is not a party in the suit or the present appeal so far. However, admittedly, he has already taken out a Chamber Summons for impleading him as a defendant in the suit. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant informs that the plaintiff has also moved similar Chamber Summons before the trial court for impleading Cutchi Lohana Trust, the original owner of the chawl. 4. Taking into consideration the controversy involved in the matter, it will be necessary that some decision should be taken by the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board on the representation of the plaintiff about his claim of eligibility for rehabilitation before Notice of Motion could be decided. In view of these circumstances, in my opinion, the following directions will meet the ends of justice :- 3 AO-824-11.sxw (i) The parties before the trial Court will not raise any objection to the Chamber Summonses and they shall be allowed and the concerned parties shall be impleaded as parties in the suit. (ii) The Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board shall take a decision on the representation of the plaintiff within four weeks from this day. It will be the responsibility of the plaintiff/appellant to serve copy of this order on the said Chief Officer within one week from this day. (iii) The concerned parties shall file reply and/or written statement within four weeks from this day. (iv) The Notice of Motion shall be decided within four weeks from the date of decision taken by the Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board about the claim of eligibility of the plaintiff. (v) Till decision of the Notice of Motion, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the disputed structure. 4 AO-824-11.sxw Appeal and the Application stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)