IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1295 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1295 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1295 OF 2008 Anand Dada Chavan & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents. Mr.G.M.Savagave for petitioners. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.B.Parabhawalkar for respondent No.4. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH NOVENBER, 2008. DATED : 12TH NOVENBER, 2008. DATED : 12TH NOVENBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The petitioners are tenants of Respondent No.3 (The Mumbai Housing and Area Development Authority) in respect of Shop Nos.1,2 and 3 situate between Building Nos.6 and 7 at Sundar Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai - 400 029. 3. On 16-11-2002, the petitioners had made an application to the Respondent No.3 to grant them their tenanted premises on ownership basis. By an office order dated 22-9-2004, the Deputy Chief Officer, Estate Management on consideration of the application had - = : 2 : = - called upon the petitioners to pay lumpsum amount quantified therein or in the alternative to pay the annual lease rent quantified therein within three months. Admittedly, the petitioners did not pay the amount and instead sought reduction of the amount quantified in the said letters. 4. Thereafter, on application made by the Society formed by the occupants in the buildings situate at Sundar Nagar layout, the Respondent No.3 permitted the said Society to redevelop the property. Accordingly, the redevelopment project undertaken by the Society has already commenced. 5. The present petition is filed belatedly in February 2008 seeking redevelopment on the basis of the application made on 16-11-2002. As noted earlier, the said application was considered and the petitioners were called upon to comply with certain conditions which the petitioners have failed and neglected to comply with. Admittedly, redevelopment of the plot in question has already been assigned to the Society formed by the occupants and the Society is getting the redevelopment work done through the respondent No.4. 6. The argument that the petitioners have a right to redevelop the plot in question and that the - = : 3 : = - respondent Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with the respondent No.4 have entrusted the redevelopment work to the respondent No.4 cannot be accepted, because the petitioners were in fact given an opportunity which the petitioners failed to avail. After the redevelopment work by the respondent No.4 has already commenced, the petitioners have filed the present petition belatedly. As the petition suffers from gross delay and latches, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present petition. 7. Redevelopment of the plot does not in any way affect the tenancy rights of the petitioners because, in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 by Sanjay K. Urankar on 29-9-2008, it is specifically stated that till the redevelopment work is completed the petitioners are entitled to carry on their commercial activity in the transit accommodation and that on construction of the permanent alternate accommodation, the petitioners would be granted the area as per the plan annexed to the said affidavit. 8. In these circumstances, we see no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) - = : 4 : = - (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)