1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION NO. 12 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 12 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 12 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 168 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4684 OF 2006 IN L.C.SUIT NO.5554 OF 2005 Smt. Gangidevi wd/o. Shobhanath Yadav & Ors. ... Applicants (Orig. Appellants) Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. J.S.Kini, Advocate i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey, Advocate for the Applicants. Smt.Nilima Sanglikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2 Mr.J.J.Xavier, advocate, for respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE DATE DATE : 8th July, 2008. : 8th July, 2008. : 8th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants/appellants in A.O. NO.68 of 2007 seek review of the order passed by this Court on 5th May, 2008 whereby the A.O. was dismissed. This Court had agreed with the trial Court that in view of the authority of this Court in Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Bales Sardara Paracha vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & another 2005 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & another 2005 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & another 2005 (4) Bom.C.R.577 (4) Bom.C.R.577 (4) Bom.C.R.577 and in view of Section 49 of the M.R.T.P.Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At that time, the learned Counsel for the appellants, on taking instructions from the appellants, had made a statement that the appellants would vacate the premises within four weeks and in view of that statement, notice of demolition of the suit premises was directed not to be implemented for a period of four weeks. 3. By this Application, the applicants contend that 3 it was not brought to the notice of the Court that in the alternative prayer the plaintiffs/appellants had sought a relief against the builder to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim shops in the new building constructed by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 and that no future development without compliance of the terms of the I.O.D. regarding obtaining of consent and agreement with the plaintiffs could take place. After going through the prayers (a) and (b) minutely, I find no fault in the order passed by the trial court. I also do not see any reason to review my own order, particularly because if both the prayers are read carefully, the directions were sought against the defendant No.1 Municipal Corporation and not against the developer or builder. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicants contends that according to the applicants/plaintiffs, they are in occupation of two shops and they are entitled to be rehabilitated in the shops with equal area in the new building. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 has pointed out that there is a written agreement to show that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in occupation of only one shop of about 8 x 6 feet and this agreement was supported by the contents of several receipts. She also points out 4 that even though the applicants are in occupation of one shop admeasuring about 48 sq. ft., the respondents have reserved an area of 76 sq. ft. in the new building for their rehabilitation. In view of this, there is no substance in the contention of the applicants that terms and conditions of the IOD are not complied with. Prima facie, I do not find any substance in the contentions of the plaintiffs. However,it may be noted that inspite of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is still pending. It goes without saying that in case the plaintiffs succeed finally in proving their claim, naturally, the builder will have to provide alternate accommodation to them in terms of the I.O.D. 5. With these observations, the Review Petition stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)