1 wp1618-10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2010 Hansumatiben Navinchandra Mehta and ors. ..Petitioners Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.R.M.G.Law Associates, for petitioners. Ms.Priti Purandare, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Shailesh Shah i/b.Mr.K.A.Chotani, for respondent no.3. Mr.D.H.Mehta i/b.Mr.Bipin Joshi, for respondent no.6. -- CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 22 nd JUNE, 2011 P.C: Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 who is one of the co-owners of the building, states that the respondent no.6 has already filed a Civil Suit in the City Civil Court challenging the notice dated 19 th June, 2010 issued by the Corporation and particularly, Condition No.3 in the said Notice, which requires the owners to provide alternate accommodation to the tenants till the building is reconstructed. He states that within a period of two weeks from today, he will move an application 2 wp1618-10.odt before the City Civil Court for joining the tenants, who are petitioners in this petition, as defendants in the suit and he will also move an application for suitable interim orders. He further states that in case the Civil Civil Court declines to grant interim order which relieves the respondent no.6 of his obligation under the condition no.3 of the Notice, to provide alternate accommodation to the tenants pending reconstruction of the building, the Notice will be enforceable against the owners, subject to the rights of the owners to challenge the order of the City Civil Court in appropriate forum. The statement is accepted. 2] In view of the statement, it is not necessary to entertain the petition because the petitioners can put up their defence in the Civil Civil Court. Petition is disposed of. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J.]