1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2830 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1987 OF 2009 Mandlik Jayantilal Jhaveri .. Plaintiff Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Naushad Engineer with Kavita Shah i/b. A.G.Shah for plaintiff Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. For defendant Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : November 7, 2009. P.C.: 1] The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for an order and decree in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees etc. from carrying out any repairs in the bedroom and bathroom of the suit flat marked in Red colour (Annexure A) to the plaint without knowledge and consultation of the plaintiff. 2] It is stated that the plaintiff is a senior citizen. Defendant No.1 is 2 an Authority appointed by the State Government. Defendant No.2 is Repair and Re-construction Board and the Third defendant is the concerned Officer. Defendant No.4 is the Contractor appointed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No.6 is plaintiff’s real brother. 3] The suit premises are tenanted premises at Babulnath Temple. Plaintiff states that the flat consists of one drawing room, three bedrooms, one dining room, one kitchen and two bathrooms. The area is approximately 2000 sft. The plaintiff along with his family members and defendant No.6 along with his wife are residing in the suit flat. Basically the allegations are against defendant No.6. The whole apprehension of the plaintiff appears to be that the Authorities have colluded with defendant No.6 while carrying out repairs. In such circumstances, the entitlement and the area occupied by the plaintiff is reduced causing him inconvenience. 4] In these circumstances, in this money claim, a notice of motion is moved for interim reliefs. 5] At the ad-interim stage, I had noted the fact that the Repairs Board 3 had carried out repairs and it wished to place on record an affidavit. 6] Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the MHADA of its Deputy Engineer. 7] After having perused this affidavit and hearing parties, I am satisfied that no case for any interlocutory reliefs has been made out. Firstly, there is a serious dispute with regard to the maintainability of the suit. Secondly, the issue of jurisdiction has also been raised, based upon section 173 of the MHADA Act. Thirdly, in the affidavit not only the lay out is disclosed but it is stated that the repair works have been completed. Once, the repair works are completed by the Contractor, pursuant to the contract awarded and that fact is placed on record together with supporting documents, then, I fail to understand as to how any interlocutory reliefs and more particularly, in terms of the Notice of Motion can be granted. Even otherwise, no prima facie case is made out to grant said reliefs. In the result, notice of motion fails and it is dismissed without any order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)