*1* wp.1037.11.901.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1037 OF 2011 Abdul Karim Naziruddin Mulla. ..Petitioner -versus- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others. ..Respondents ............ Mr.A.G.Damle i/b A.N.Mulla, for the Petitioner. Mr.S.I.Memon, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.J.Xavier, Ms.T.H.Puranik, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/BMC. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 11th October, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Inquiry Officer dated 15.09.2010 stated to be made under Section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 2 In the earlier orders passed by this Court the grievance of the Petitioner, who is practicing Advocate, has been noted. If the Petitioner has been evicted from the Municipal Premises, if he is held to be tenant, and if the property in which the Petitioner has premises is being redeveloped, then, an assurance must be given for permanent alternate accommodation by the Corporation and also for provision for transit or temporary alternate accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof, was the request made before this Court. 3 After considering rival contentions in detail and perusing the *2* wp.1037.11.901.sxw necessary documents, an order was passed on 19.09.2011 and in pursuance thereof, two affidavits have been filed. The Respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are stated to be the Developers developing the property which is Municipal property, have identified the permanent alternate accommodation which would be offered to the Petitioner in lieu of his existing shop/ commercial premises on the ground floor. 4 However, both Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Mr.Memon, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, stated that the list of tenants/ occupants with the Corporation shows that one Chandmiya Dhondimiya was in possession of the subject commercial premises. Therefore, the Petitioner if claiming through this occupant/ tenant should give an indemnity in favour of the Corporation as also the Developers in terms of the orders of this Court that if any claim is made by any person including his family members in relation to the said permanent alternate accommodation or even in respect of the transit accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof, the Petitioner shall indemnify both the Corporation so also the Developers as against any claim or legal proceedings that may be instituted by any such person and it is only then the Corporation can ensure that the agreement for permanent alternate accommodation will be executed with the Petitioner. 5 On the earlier occasion, the grievance was made that the permanent alternate accommodation was not identified on the plan nor any copy of the Municipal approval has been produced. Now the affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.4 and it is stated that the Respondent No.4 has obtained the sanction to the Development Plan vide the Corporation's letter or IOD dated 04.03.2010. The plan identifies the permanent alternate accommodation in red-hatch line. Both documents *3* wp.1037.11.901.sxw are annexed to this affidavit. In terms of this affidavit and the plan, Mr.Memon, on instructions, makes a statement that the permanent alternate accommodation or even the temporary/ transit accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof, would be offered to the Petitioner on his executing the indemnity as aforestated. Mr.Memon states that within a period of one week after furnishing the indemnity in favour of the Corporation as also the Developers, the necessary documents would be executed with the Petitioner. 6 Mr.Damle, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, however, contends that the Petitioner was entitled to one more premises and that was identified in the earlier building on the first floor. The ground floor premises were used by his brothers, therefore, the order as also the indemnity should not extinguish the rights that are being claimed by the Petitioner, in addition to the existing shop, on the ground floor. 7 This aspect is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and it is stated that no such authorization or other documents evidencing the Petitioner's rights are placed forward nor this Court can go into these issues in the present proceedings. 8 In my view, the claim of the Petitioner in relation to the additional premises in the newly constructed building will have to be adjudicated elsewhere. This Court is not expressing any opinion as far as this contention is concerned and the Petitioner is free to raise it before the appropriate forum by filing appropriate proceedings. For the present, if the Petitioner indemnifies the Corporation as also the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 as against any claim that may be made by his brothers, family members or third party and on giving his specific indemnity to this effect in favour of the Corporation and the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 within a *4* wp.1037.11.901.sxw period of two weeks from today, necessary documents or agreements would be executed with the Petitioner and the premises identified in the plan at Exhibit-B to the additional affidavit dated 11.10.2011 shall be provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner shall also be provided either the transit/ temporary accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof as per the terms and conditions and on par with other occupants. 9 Finding that the Petitioner has been evicted from the Corporation's premises because they were in dilapidated state and would require urgent repairs and also on the ground of non cooperation by the Petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Further, no useful purpose would be served by going into the contentions of the parties in relation to the said order when the Corporation and the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are also ensuring the redevelopment of the premises. The Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 dated 11.10.2011 and the undertaking given by the Petitioner are taken on record and marked as “X” and “X-1” respectively for identification. 10 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Nothing observed in the impugned order or in the orders of this Court would in any manner prejudice the claim of the Petitioner or other parties in relation to the additional premises. All contentions of all parties in relation thereto are kept open. 11 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)