1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.868 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1067 OF 2009 Mr.Digambar Gunaji Panchal ..Appellant V/s Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority .Respondents ---- Mr. G.M.Savagave for the appellant. Mr.G.W.Mattos AGP for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 29th August, 2009. PC 1 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff impugning an order dated 20.8.2009 refusing ad-interim relief in the Notice of Motion. It is seen that the defendants-MHADA has granted NOC permitting reconstruction on 26.4.2006. There are 9 units which are contemplated having 288 flats in the building in which plaintiff resides, there are 32 occupants and 29 of them have shifted. In this background, since 3 persons are not shifting, MHADA issued notice under Section 95-A. First contention raised is that since conveyance is executed by MHADA, MHADA has no power to issue notice under Section 95- A. There appears to be no substance in this submission because MHADA is vested with statutory powers under 33(5) (7) of the DC Regulations 1991 to issue a notice to persons who fail to vacate the existing tenements. The alternate accomodation is also ready. In 2 these circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Advocate for the appellant seeks time to vacate the premises. He is granted two weeks time to vacate subject to his filing undertaking in this Court by 1.9.2009 stating therein that he alone is in possession and he will not create any 3rd party rights or part with possession of the tenements or any part thereof in his possession. It is made clear that in case appellant does not vacate within 2 weeks then MHADA will be entitled to execute the notice under Section 95-A. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1067 OF 2009 1 As the main appeal is dismissed, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3