ssp 1 WP 2450 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2450 OF 2010 Jamnaben Nandlal Bhavsar .....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.J.G.Damani, for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Thorat, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.D.J.Lulia, for respondent No.5. Mr.Birendra Saraf a/w Mr.Yadunath Chaudhari i/by Reena Salunkhe, for respondent No.8. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 20 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 submits that the petitioner has already been evicted from the premises in question and the premises are already demolished and the construction work is going on. He further submits that he is willing to execute an agreement with the petitioner, and on the petitioner executing the agreement, necessary cheques would be handed over to the petitioner regarding payment of rent commencing from the date of eviction from the premises, which may be calculated from the day on which the petitioner was evicted from the premises i.e. 26-10-2009. He further submits that the arrears of rent from that date till March 2012 shall be paid to the petitioner on she executing ssp 2 WP 2450 of 2010 the agreement with the respondent No.8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 states that the said cheques are ready and will be given to the petitioner and the amount mentioned therein is on the basis of the rent which is calculated upto March 2012. 2. In view of the aforesaid statements of the learned counsel for the respondent No.8, no further directions are required to be given in this matter, especially when the petitioner has already been evicted from the premises in question and the construction has commenced and reached the plinth level. The petitioner may be provided copy of the IOD, CC and plan forthwith. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction in question should be completed expeditiously. In so far as this aspect is concerned, this Court cannot give any particular time limit in that respect. But we expect that the construction work would be completed expeditiously and we have no doubt that no delay would be caused in completing the construction in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that the petitioner will not obstruct the development work in any manner as she is interested in getting the place in the newly constructed premises. It is clarified that in case the construction of the building in question is not completed by March 2012 and in case any enhancement of rent is made qua the other ssp 3 WP 2450 of 2010 tenants, the respondent No.8 may consider this aspect in an appropriate manner qua the petitioner also. 4. In view of what is stated above, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of the statement of Mr.Saraf, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8, it is not necessary to consider his submission that the petitioner had earlier filed petition and it was withdrawn with a view to file appropriate proceedings. At this stage, we would not like to go into the disputed questions of fact and with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )