1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2010 Ananda Maruti Jagadale (Deceased) Through L.Rs. A) Smt. Sushilabai W/o Anandrao Jagadale and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- Devidas Yadhav Baviskar ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. A.B. Gatne, advocate for applicants Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel holding for Mr. L.V. Sangeet, advocate for respondent ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14 th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicants seek review of the judgment and order dated 8th July, 2010, rendered in Writ Petition No.2587/1992. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 3. The applicants are the original defendants. This Court confirmed the eviction decree. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicants are the tenants in respect of the shop premises. 2 The shop premises were found to be in dilapidated condition and as such, the eviction decree is upheld because the landlords i.e. respondents in the present application desire to demolish the construction of the shop premises and to construct the building after following due procedure. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dixit would point out that the applicants never pleaded in the trial Court as well as before this Court regarding the re-induction after construction of the new building as provided under Section 16(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. He would submit therefore that now it is not permissible to consider such a request. I do not agree. For, there is no question of pleading in this behalf in as much as, law requires landlord to offer appropriate premises if the tenant is willing to re-enter the same after new construction is completed. Considering the legal position, it is necessary therefore, to modify the final order in keeping with Section 16(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. In this view of the matter the following condition in final order shall be made:- "The landlords (respondents) shall submit the proposed construction plan to the Municipal Corporation within a period of six months and if due permission is obtained, the proportionate premises shall be offered to the applicants in lieu of 3 the suit premises. If the applicants would accept the proposal, then the said premises shall be reserved and let out to them after completion of the construction of building. In case, such offer is accepted by the applicants, they shall immediately vacate the suit shop without any murmur within a period of two weeks. The eviction of the applicants to take effect after due consideration of the offer. It is however, made clear that the premises that would be offered to the applicants will be as per the availability and after due permission for proposed construction plan is received from the Municipal Authorities and if some part of the house property is not allowed to be constructed in view of the amended Rules and as per the provisions of Rules, or as per the relevant parameters of the Town Planning Authority, then at the same place of the suit premises or in the proximity thereof on the ground floor itself proportionate premises shall be offered. The premises to be offered to the applicants shall be facing the public road as per the present situation though it may not be exactly abutting to the public road. The applicants to give reply to the offer within a period of two weeks after the offer is made and thereafter further action may be taken in the matter and if the offer is rejected for flimsy reasons, the eviction decree shall be executed through process of Court. Liberty to apply before the Executing Court." 4 5. The application is accordingly allowed." (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/ra130.10