ssp 1 WP 280 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.280 OF 2011 Vasant Sadashiv Rahate and Ors. .....Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.S.P.Srivastava, for the petitioners. Ms.V.S.Gharpure, for the respondent No.1. Mr.Dipen Furia i/by M/s.Niranjan & Co., for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioners have filed the above petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking directions against the Corporation to take possession of the premises situated in Shiv Shakti Co- operative Housing Society, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, from the respondent No.2 and to allot the petitioners in lieu of their original shops. The petitioners have to be rehabilitated as their structures wherein they are carrying out business, were coming within the plot wherein a market is to be constructed. There is some dispute as regards the temporary alternate accommodation which is to be provided by the respondent No.2 as the petitioners were labouring under the impression that the building ssp 2 WP 280 of 2011 which was constructed by the respondent No.2 where the petitioners are to be temporarily accommodated, was not in accord with the plan approved by the respondent No.1 Corporation. However, the said issue has been resolved in as much as an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Shri Devendrakumar P. Jain, Asstt. Commissioner, G/N Ward, Mumbai, dated 20th September, 2011, wherein a statement has been made that the premises which were received from the respondent No.2. Rajlaxmi Developers, of which a mention is made in para No.5, would be handed over to the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Srivastava, having gone through the said affidavit, submits that the petitioners are agreeable to accept the premises mentioned in para No.5 of the affidavit- in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 as temporary alternate accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that the possession of the said premises would be handed over to each of the petitioners within a period of one week from date and since the premises are situated on different floors, the allotment would be made by drawing lots. The learned counsel further states that the petitioners will have to pay rent for the area of 225 sq.ft. which is the area of each of the premises, though the entitlement of the petitioners for permanent alternate accommodation is for a lesser area. The learned counsel for the ssp 3 WP 280 of 2011 petitioners accepts the said offer. However, since the petitioners are to be rehabilitated, we expect the Corporation to take a reasonable view in the matter in so far as the fixation of the rent for the premises are concerned. In so far as the market wherein permanent alternate accommodation is to be granted to the petitioners, we hope and expect that the said project would be completed expeditiously. 3. It is clarified that two of the petitioners are entitled to residential premises and two of them are entitled for commercial premises. The petitioners would therefore, be allotted premises as per their entitlement. The petitioners to file an undertaking with the Corporation to the effect that they would hand over possession of the temporary alternate accommodation on being allotted permanent alternate accommodation. The said undertaking to be filed within a period of two weeks from the date. 4. In the light of the above, no further directions are necessary to be passed. The above writ petition to stand disposed of accordingly. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )