1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 529 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 645 OF 2009 Smt. Jayaben Kazi ...Appellant Versus MHADA & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S. M. Kazi for the Appellant. Mr. P. G. Lad for Respondent No.1-MHADA. Mr. P. C. Kansara for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. P.C. : Heard, Mr. Kazi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Lad, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Kansara for Respondent No.2. 2. The aforesaid Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order of the City Civil Court Judge rejecting the Appellant/Plaintiff’s notice of motion no.1307 of 2008 taken out for temporary injunction restraining Respondent No.1 from entering upon and demolishing and/or disturbing the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the Appellant/ Plaintiff on the suit premises viz. Room Nos. 1 & 2, Ground Floor, Kasiram Mayaram House, Building No.78-80, Banganga Road, Mumbai – 400 006. 2 3. During the pendency of the said notice of motion, the suit premises came to be sealed. The Kasiram Mayaram House consisted of ground plus two floors. First and Second floor are already demolished by Respondent No.1-MHADA in pursuance of notice under section 89 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. After hearing the learned counsel for sometime, Mr. Kazi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that he may not pursue this Appeal if Respondent No.1 reconstruct the building after demolition of the suit premises as early as possible. Mr. Lad, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, submits that if the Appellant and Respondent No.2 co-operates, then the construction will be completed as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Kansara, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that Respondent No.2 has already deposited a deficit amount as per the demand of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to further deposit additional amount, if required, for the purpose of reconstruction. In the above facts and circumstances, the Appeal from Order is disposed of, by passing the following order : 1. The Appellant shall remove her household articles from the suit premises on or before 30th of this month. The Respondent No.1 for the said purpose shall co-operate with the Appellant. 2. The Respondent No.1 shall reconstruct the building in place of the suit premises as early as possible and preferably within a period of fifteen months from today. 3. The Appellant and Respondent No.2 shall co-operate with Respondent No.1 for reconstruction of the building on the suit premises. The Respondent No.2 shall deposit/pay to Respondent No.1 additional amount for the purpose of reconstruction, if required, by Respondent No.1. 3 4. The Respondent No.1 shall give alternative accommodation to the Appellant in Colaba Transit Camp within a period of two weeks from today and place the Appellant in possession of newly reconstructed premises immediately after completion thereof. 5. The Appellant, in order to implement the above order, shall complete all the necessary formalities. The Appeal from Order is disposed of, in above terms. 4. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No. 645 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)