1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2009 Vinita Ganpat Gujar ..Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. M.J. Jamdar for the Petitioner. Ms T.H. Puranik for the BMC - Respondent No.1. Mr. S.A. Sawant for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th December, 2009. P.C. : The Court has been informed that the Petitioner has already vacated the premises in order to facilitate the redevelopment that is taking place under Development Control Regulation 33(7). Since the Petitioner has already vacated the premises, learned counsel fairly states that the challenge to the order passed by the City Civil Court on 20th August, 2009 in an appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 105-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 will 2 not survive. Insofar as the second relief for the allotment of alternate permanent commercial premises admeasuring a carpet area of 250 sq. ft. (instead of 80 sq. ft. as already sanctioned) is concerned, the Petitioner is permitted to file a comprehensive representation before the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) of the Municipal Corporation. In the event that the representation is filed within tendays, the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) will take a decision thereon expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from today. All the rights and contentions for the assertion of the claim in respect of the area of the alternate accommodation are kept open. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. *****