1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 893 OF 2008 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1070 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 893 OF 2008 Suhail Akhatar Mohd.Hussain .......Appellant Verus Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Ors. ........Respondents == = = = Miss.R.C.Nichani, adv.for appellant. Ms.Kiran Bhagalia, adv.for respondent no.1. Mr.P.P.Menghrajani representative of M/s. Shyam Narayan & Co. for respondent no.2. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 4 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Appeal from Order is preferred against the order dated 27th August, 2008 by which the earlier order dated 27th August, 2008 directing the 2 parties to maintain status-quo, was vacated. The first respondent, namely Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority is presently constructing road in Shyam Nagar, Veera Desai Road, Amboli, Andheri (West). The lines of the road run over the building in which the appellant claims to have his premises. The building being affected by the road line, respondent no.1 is bound to allot alternate accommodation to the project affected persons as per law. The appellant has not been alloted any alternate accommodation. 2. It is the appellants' case in the plaint that his father, Mohammed Siddiqui had acquired four rooms on the open space in the front on tenancy in the building from one M/s. M.S.Desai & Co. According to him, the fathers' family being very large, with the passage of time, the four rooms came to be independently occupied by different family members and the appellant came to occupy the fourth room. He had kept the room locked and was away for some time. When respondent no.1 carried out survey of the rooms in the building all the rooms except the room of the appellant were numbered. The appellants' room was not numbered at all. Instead, respondent no.1 had numbered a room on the rear side of his room, as Room No.150 with its occupant as one Mr.Shyamji Desai. The three rooms in possession of the family members of the appellant came to be numbered as Rooms No.147, 148 and 149. The occupants have been held to be eligible for allotment of alternate accommodation by 3 respondent no.1. The appellant contends that he is entitled for alternate accommodation from respondent no.1. The Learned Trial Judge has held that what is being shown by the appellant as an independent room, is infact covering of an open space. 3. The appellant has produced photographs showing Room No.150 and the room in his occupation. The same are taken on record. The photographs make it clear that what is being shown as a separate room, Room No.150 is infact an extension of the room allegedly occupied independently by the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be prima-facie said that respondent no.1 has failed to take cognizance of the appellants' room and number the same. 4. The appellant relies upon a list of tenants which is annexed to the plaint in Suit No. 1429 of 1996 filed by one Vithoba S. Khambal, to which the appellant is not a party, in order to establish his tenancy in respect of the premises and occupation of the premises. The list of tenants at page 93 of the compilation mentions the appellant as a tenant in respect of Room No.E/1A. This list does not mention names of any other family members of the appellants. It however names Shyamji Desai as one of the tenant in respect of Room No.E/1B. There is no way in which the court can verify the correctness of the tenants list annexed to the plaint in Suit No. 1429 of 1996. In any case, if the appellants' case is to be 4 accepted, the list would become defective, inasmuch as, it does not mention the names of his family members who are allegedly independently occupying the three rooms in the building. Therefore, prima-facie, there is no substance in the claim made by the appellant that the room in his occupation has not been taken into account by respondent no.1 and numbered it for the purpose of allotment of alternate accommodation. 5. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that respondent no.2 who is allegedly carrying out the work of construction of road has committed breaches of excavation permission given to him on 8th July, 2008. The permission prohibits him from cutting, blasting or from excavating any hill slides or hill slopes for any purpose. Ms.Nichani, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the photographs produced by the appellant shows that respondent no.2 has been carrying out the work of excavation of hill slides or hill slopes. From the photographs, it is seen that the work of construction of the road is in progress. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that there is any kind of excavation of hill slides or hill slopes being carried out by respondent no.2. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention either. Besides, as pointed out by Ms.Bhagalia, learned counsel for respondent no.1, the contract of road construction has been given by respondent no.1 to the joint venture of Shyam Narayan and Brothers and Rajesh Construction Company and not to respondent no.2 independently. 5 Therefore, there can be no relief against respondent no.2 alone. In all the above circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed in limine. 6. With the dismissal of the Appeal from order, nothing survives in the Civil Application. The same is accordingly disposed off. 7. Ms.Nichani, applies for continuation of the order of status-quo for 2 weeks. It is to be noted that the appellant is not residing in the room. He has kept the same locked. Therefore, no prejudice is going to be caused to him. Besides the main issue involved in the suit is grant of alternate premises to the appellant. For that purpose the work of construction of the road need not be stopped. Hence, the application is rejected. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]