=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2007 NO.2100 OF 2007 NO.2100 OF 2007 Mrs Generosa A. Annes ...Petitioner v/s Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others ...Respondents Mr Anand Grover i/b Mr A.T. Margues for Petitioner. Mr Milind More, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr Suresh Gupte i/b Mr B.A. Singh for Respondent No.3. Mr R.U. Singh i/b Mr A.A. Mirza for Respondent No.4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.S. MOHITE JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH APRIL 2009 15TH APRIL 2009 15TH APRIL 2009 =2= P.C. :- 1. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 states that the respondent No.3 has already made statements in an affidavit filed in writ petition No.1850 of 2006. Those statements read as under :- "The respondent No.3 owner who proposes to develop the building in question has also filed his affidavit dated 23.1.2007 in which it has been categorically stated in para 9, that he is ready to hand over Shop No.1 (back portion) together with Shop No.2 together with shed as one unit being Shop No.2 in redeveloped building having same area to the Petitioner through Court Receiver after its reconstruction. It has been further stated that as regards the other premises namely Shop No.1 (front portion), Shop No.3 and store room under staircase, he is ready to handover possession of alternative premises in the redeveloped building in lieu of the same to such person as may found to be entitled thereto by the Small Causes Court at Bombay before whom the dispute relating to the =3= tenancy of the said premises is pending..." . He states that the respondent No.3 will abide by those statements. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that in the order passed by the Chief Officer of respondent No.2 dated 8th April 2008 it has already been stated thus :- "In view of the above circumstances, it is seen that the R.A.D. Suit No.811 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner against Haji Ismail Essa, landlord - NOC holder on the very subject matter of this petition, namely the tenancy rights pertaining to the shop Nos.1, 2, 3, C1 shed and room under staircase is pending before the Hon’ble Small Causes Court for adjudication. It will be therefore fair and reasonable for the Board to accept the decision of that Court on the subject as aforesaid." . He further states that therefore the respondent Nos.1 and 2 will abide by the decision of the Civil Court. In our opinion, in view of these statements, the petition cannot be entertained. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner made a grievance that in case the petitioner is held to be =4= entitled to the premises by the competent Civil Court, she should be given same area which is being given to other tenants and to which the petitioner would be entitled. In our opinion, in case according to the petitioner, she is not being given the area to which she is entitled, the petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings for getting that relief as also for such other reliefs as the petitioner may feel that she is entitled to. In view of this, petition is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.S. MOHITE J.)