hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO. 6410 OF 2009 Ajay @ Dayanand Shetty & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. Neeta Karnik for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. For R. No. 1 and 5. Mr. Mandar Limaye for R. No. 2. Mr. Sandesh Patil for R. No. 3. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Sanjay Gawade for R. No. 4. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2009 P.C. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. The Petitioner No. 1 was tenant in occupation of the building which has been demolished and since reconstructed. Like Petitioner there are another 116 admitted tenants and there are two tenants whose tenancy is disputed. The Petitioners approached this court seeking relief to demolish the structure constructed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at Aradhana Coop. Hsg. Soc. and further to take action according to Law. The Petitioner No. 1 is a member and had entrusted the construction of the building to Respondent No. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that the construction has been put up which is contrary to the sanctioned plan. The record would also show that Respondent No. 2 has withdrawn the permission. The society subsequent to the withdrawal of the permission has preferred a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Thane being Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 2009. Initially the order of status quo was granted on 2.9.2009. That order of status quo as per uncertified copies made available to us by the learned counsel for the Petitioner was continued on 12.10.2009. There is also an additional affidavit filed by Shri. Shivmurti Naik, the Commissioner of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation, Respondent No. 2. In Para 2, they have set out the steps that they have taken and pointed out that by letter dated 28.1.2009 they have revoked redevelopment permission dated 28.8.2008 earlier granted to Respondent No. 3. Para 3 also sets out that the status quo has been granted and corporation has taken steps as following due process of law. On the facts of this case, the question is whether this court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. In the first instance the property is being developed at the instance of the society of members who had earlier resided in the old building which has since been demolished. This is therefore, basically a dispute between the one member against the other members. It is possible that the contention that he urges may have merit, but in our opinion, this court will not allow this forum for settling the private disputes. At any rate, in our opinion, this would not be a fit case in such circumstances for this court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Pursuant to our direction, Mr. Sagarmal Jain, Proprietor of Respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is pointed out that there are 130 tenements in the building in respect of which there are 117 admitted members and two disputed members. In other words, there are additional 11 tenements out of which 6 tenements have been sold. The names of the parties to whom they have been sold is set out in Para 3. Five tenements remained unsold. Considering the above and pending the suit, we propose to dispose of this petition by issuing the following directions : (1) The respondent No.4 is directed not to transfer, part with or collect money in respect of the 5 remaining tenements. (2) It will be open to the Petitioner herein to apply before the learned Civil Judge for being added as defendant in the suit. On such application, considering the interest of Petitioner No. 1 that application may be allowed. (3) It will be open to the defendant to take all such steps in law for vacating the order of status quo. The learned Judge on the Petitioner being added as party and giving him an opportunity of filing W.S. and reply, thereafter to dispose of the pending application for interim relief. (4) The Respondent No. 3 and 4 has been directed not to sell five flats. This again will be subject to Respondent No. 2 issuing occupation certificate for the entire building according to law and if permissible. On such condition, being fulfilled, it will be open to the respondent No. 4 to dispose of the said flats. (5) If the interim relief is vacated, the respondent No. 2 is directed to take steps according to law. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)