-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1165 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1446 OF 2009 M/s. Silver Arc Properties Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellants versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others ... Respondents Mr. Vijay Thorat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, instructed by Mr. S.L. Ahuja, for the appellants. Mr. Vasant Mahadik for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Shiraz Rustomji, Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Ms. Prembhari Thakkar and Mr. Adin Prabhu, instructed by M/s. Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla, for respondent No.6 CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR,J. DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2009. P.C. Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, after taking instructions from his clients, states that if reasonable time to vacate the suit plot/premises is granted, the appellants are not interested in proceeding with this appeal. He, however, requested that the right of the appellants to claim alternate accommodation may be kept open so that the appellants can make appropriate representation to the Corporation in this behalf. -2- 2. The area in question where the appellants are doing their business is reserved as a Recreation Ground in the Development Plan since long and the beneficiaries are not in a position to get the benefit of recreation ground because of the pending litigation. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has refused the prayer for injunction sought for by the appellants against which this appeal is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are ready to vacate the suit plot/premises within a reasonable period of time for which the appellants are ready to give an undertaking. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have to wind up its garage business where 25 employees are working, the appellants are permitted to withdraw this appeal and is granted time to vacate the suit plot/premises latest by 1st April, 2010. An undertaking in this behalf to be filed by the Managing Director as well as Directors of the appellants. A copy of the said undertaking may be given to the Advocate for the Corporation as well as Advocate for respondent No.6. It should be clearly provided in the undertaking that without resisting and obstructing in any manner, the appellants shall vacate the suit plot/premises in question latest by 1st April, 2010 and that they will not ask for any further extension in this behalf. In the undertaking it should further be provided that the appellants will vacate the -3- suit plot/premises unconditionally and will not obstruct in any manner nor will try to retain the possession of the suit plot/premises till the prayer for alternative accommodation is decided by the Corporation, as that will be a separate and independent proceedings that the appellants may adopt. The appellants should also provide in the undertaking that they will not take out any further proceedings in any fora so far as vacating the present suit plot/premises is concerned. In the undertaking it is also to be provided that the pending suit in the City Civil Court i.e. Long Cause Suit No. 303 of 2009 be withdrawn within a period of three weeks from today. The undertaking on the above lines be filed within two weeks from today. 4. On giving of such undertaking, the Corporation may not dispossess the appellants till 1st April, 2010. However, in case the undertaking is not filed within two weeks from today, the Corporation can proceed to evict the appellant straightway. After vacating the premises, it will be open to the appellants to make an appropriate representation to the Corporation for providing alternate accommodation. Even the representation can be made by the appellant at any point of time i.e. prior to 1st April, 2010 so that the Corporation can decide such representation in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is, however, clarified that making such representation will have no bearing so far as vacating the suit premises is concerned as that will be an independent and separate proceeding altogether. Whether the appellants are -4- entitled to alternate accommodation or not is also a question to be decided by the Corporation as per the Rules and Regulations and in this aspect, this Court is not expressing any opinion. However, if any representation is made by the appellants, the Corporation may take appropriate decision expeditiously in accordance with law. 5. Subject to what is stated above, this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. The appellants are granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 1st April, 2010. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Application. The Civil Application is also accordingly disposed of. 6. Before parting with this order, the Court would like to emphasise that if any other plots which are earmarked for the purpose of recreation ground, the Corporation should take expeditious action in accordance with law, without remaining silent and dormant, as has happened in the present case. It is expected of the Corporation to act in accordance with law and to take appropriate proceedings so that citizens may not feel that a favourable treatment is given to some sections of the society by the Corporation. In short, the Corporation has to remove all the occupants who are in unauthorised occupation of the plots which are earmarked for recreation ground. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that appropriate -5- expeditious action would be taken in this behalf in accordance with law and no undue sympathy would be shown to such occupants who are occupying the plots unauthorisedly which are meant for recreation ground. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.