ssp 1 WP 1232 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.350 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1232 OF 2011 Anthony Fernandes .....Petitioner versus Deputy Chief Officer, Maharashtra Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Clive D’Souza, for the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Chirag Balsara i/by Divya Shah and Associates, for respondent No.5. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 03 rd OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioner is challenging the notices dated 04-10-2010 and 15-10-2010 issued under Section 95A of the MHADA Act. By the said notices, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the transit accommodation in question. The petitioner was occupant of the structure which has undergone redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation, 1991. As and by way of permanent alternate accommodation, the petitioner has been allotted Flat No.502 of Riddhi Siddhi Building and an agreement in respect of the said flat was ssp 2 WP 1232 of 2011 executed in the year 2009. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also taken possession of the flat allotted to him on 12-11-2010. On such allotment, the petitioner filed S.C.Suit No.1511 of 2010 interalia seeking various reliefs relating to the said flat. The petitioner filed a Notice of Motion No.1506 of 2010 seeking certain interim reliefs on the ground that there were certain defects in the flat in question. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court by his order dated 07th August, 2010 rejected the said Notice of Motion. In so far as the alleged defects in the flat in question are concerned, the same have been reproduced in para 6 of the said order. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court had appointed a Commissioner to verify as regards the veracity of the said allegations regarding the defects. On the basis of the report of the Commissioner and photographs that were produced, the learned Judge recording a finding that the flat in question is in proper condition and consequently directed the petitioner to vacate the transit accommodation and to shift to the said permanent alternate accommodation. 2. Having lost at the Notice of Motion stage, though the suit filed by him is still pending, the petitioner now seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the notices in question which have been issued on the ground that the petitioner is not vacating the transit accommodation. Taking ssp 3 WP 1232 of 2011 into consideration the conspectus of the facts as narrated above, in our view, the same do not warrant interference with the impugned notices in our writ jurisdiction. The above writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the above Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )