( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2009 Sakurnnissa Rais Khan and Anr. ..Appellants V/s. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ..Respondents ...... Ms.Geeta Shastri i/by Mr.S.C. Srivastava for the appellants Ms.Kiran Bagalia for respondent-MMRDA ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2009 DATED : 24th April, 2009 DATED : 24th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appellants received a notice dated 9th February, 2004 issued by the defendants and by that the respondents wanted to remove the suit structure. The appellants instituted the suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay being S.C. Suit No.944 of 2004. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court (hereinafter referred to as the said ’learned trial Judge’) decided the suit by order dated 18th November, 2008 and dismissed the suit. 2. While dismissing the suit, the learned trial Judge has specifically observed that the appellants are found to be eligible and entitled to an alternate accommodation in lieu of suit premises vide letter which is at Exh.-27 in the record. It is on this ( 2 ) count, the learned trial Judge has observed that no injunction is required to be granted in favour of the appellants as the appellants’ interest is adequately protected. 3. Before this Court, learned advocate Ms.Shastri submitted that appellants have not been put in possession. She submitted that protection is required to be given to the appellants till such time appellants are put in possession of the alternate accommodation in lieu of the suit premises vide letter at Exh.-27. 4. After having heard learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants, it is clear that the appellants are entitled to an alternate premises. If this is the position, right of the appellants to have the house / roof is as well protected. In such a situation, there is no need to declare that impugned notice dated 9th February, 2004 is illegal because in lieu of the said suit structure, the appellants are going to get one alternate structure and hence the right of the appellants are adequately protected by the developing agency. In such a situation, the finding given by the learned trial Judge cannot be considered as illegal and improper. ( 3 ) 5. Anxiety was expressed by the learned advocate for the appellants that the appellants do not know when the appellants would get an alternate structure vide Exh.-27 and till such time they are put in possession of the structure, the appellants should not be removed from the suit premises. In so far as this aspect is concerned, I am inclined to observe that appellants are free to contact the appropriate authority, who has promised them to give an alternate structure and move that authority to have a structure allotted so that shifting of the appellants can be attended to in a smooth manner for that an order of injunction of this Court is not necessary because I am sure that appellants alone are not going to be shifted from suit site, there must be at least dozens of other persons who would be removed from the suit site. I am saying this because MMRDA is interested in completing the town planning project and to see that property on which the suit premises stand is made available for the public purpose. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass following order :- ORDER ORDER ORDER . Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are free to enter into correspondence with the ( 4 ) appropriate authority who has issued letter at Exh.-27 in respect of alternate structure to be made available to the appellants. . Learned advocate for the appellants wanted to contend that there are two appellants and therefore each of the appellant is entitled to a separate structure. In my view, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the question as to how many structure each of the appellant is entitled to. The letter at Exh.-27 would take care of that aspect of the matter. . In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.1421 of 2009 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, (R.Y. GANOO, (R.Y. GANOO, J.) J.) J.)