1 wpl618.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 618 OF 2011 Rekha Ranjit Zaveri .....Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ......Respondents. Mr. S.S. Joshi i/by Ms. Priti Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. P.G. Lad, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. G.W. Mattos for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Dhiran Shah i/by M/s. Vimla & Co. for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Narayanan & Narayanan for Respondent No.7. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 9, 2011 P.C.: The property in question is being redeveloped under DCR 33(7). The dispute in question relates to room No.102. The Petitioner is the mother of the Seventh and Eighth Respondents. There is a dispute inter se between the Petitioner on the one hand and the Seventh Respondent on the other hand, as to who is entitled to be certified as an occupant by MHADA. The Petitioner has relied upon consent terms 2 wpl618.11.sxw ssm that were arrived at in Short Cause Suit No. 7087 of 1996 in the City Civil Court on 23 December 1997, and on certain additional material in support of the submission that the Petitioner and the Seventh Respondent are jointly entitled to the occupation of Room No.102. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Seventh Respondent has relied upon a document purported to have been executed by the Petitioner on 25 November, 2007 (Exhibit 6-A to the reply of the Seventh Respondent) under which the Petitioner is alleged to have agreed to the Developer entering into an agreement with the Seventh Respondent. The attention of the Court has been drawn to certain file notings of the Executive Engineer (Exhibit V-1 and V-2) in which it was proposed that the name of the Petitioner should be included as a joint occupant together with the Seventh Respondent. 2 At the hearing of this Petition, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents has placed reliance on a Government Resolution dated 16 August 2010 by which a procedure has been prescribed for resolving such disputes. The Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA has been authorized to deal with appeals arising out of the certification of the lists of tenants by the Repair Board and a further Appeal is provided to the 3 wpl618.11.sxw ssm State Government. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the Petition by directing that it will be open to the Petitioner to move the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA, should she be so advised to do so in an appeal for the purpose of seeking the inclusion of her name in the list of tenants/occupants. In the event that the Petitioner does so within a period of two weeks from today, the Appellate authority shall dispose of the Appeal on merits, without having regard to the bar of limitation, as prescribed by the Government Resolution. Before disposing of the Appeal, the Appellate Authority shall furnish an opportunity of being heard both to the Petitioner and the Seventh Respondent, who would also be at liberty to file necessary documentary material and submissions before the Appellate Authority. 3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Developer has submitted that the entire process of redevelopment has been held up only because of the dispute between the petitioner and the Seventh Respondent. A notice has been issued by the Repair Board under Section 95(A) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. We clarify that the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority shall not amount to a stay on the implementation 4 wpl618.11.sxw ssm of the Notice under Section 95(A). However in the event that the claim of the Petitioner for inclusion in the tenancy list is eventually accepted, necessary steps shall be taken for correcting the list of the tenants in accordance with law. 4 Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer states before the Court that in so far as the developer is concerned, he will pay the compensation which is being offered in lieu of transit accommodation to whoever amongst the Petitioner and the Seventh Respondent is found to be eligible in the course of the Appellate proceeding by the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA. 5 The Appellate authority, in the event of a further appeal being preferred, shall dispose of the Appellate proceedings within a period of six weeks. 6 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)