1 APP276/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.276 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3274 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2725 OF 2010 Smt Priti T. Desai and others ...Appellants v/s Vardhaman Developers and others ...Respondents Mr Gaurav Joshi i/b M/s Khaitan and Jaykar for Appellants. Mr D.D. Madon, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr Y.M. Chaudhari for Respondent No.1. Mr Vishwanath Mannadiar for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE 2011. 2 APP276/11 P.C. :- 1] Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. The respondents have clarified before us that so far as basic equivalent carpet area is concerned, there will be no compromise and that area will be definitely given. Even, additional area as agreed will be given excluding service duct area and if there is anything less, the respondents will pay for the lesser area as per the agreement between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for respondents has also clarified that the area of service duct will not be counted and each flat will get area in excess of approximately 30 sq.ft. than the basic carpet area. In any case, all the plaintiffs are getting flats and so far as the area of service duct is concerned, in our opinion, there would not be significant change to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs in the area that they ultimately get. In any case, they have agreed to accept money if there is any shortfall in the area. The learned counsel appearing for appellants 3 APP276/11 argued that the clause contemplates area being less by only 1 % and there cannot be less area more than 1 %. In our opinion, prima facie, this submission cannot be accepted if one considers the wording of the clause. In any case, the learned Single Judge has made an order which permits construction of the building. Considering that most of the members of the Society have vacated their flats, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to interfere. Appeal is rejected. At this stage, a request is made on behalf of the appellants to continue the interim arrangement which is in force, which prevents the Receiver from evicting members of the Society who are still occupying the flats. In our opinion, as most of the members of the Society have vacated their flats, it will be unfair to them to make any interim arrangement which will prolong completion of the building. The request is therefore rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order 4 APP276/11 duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )