1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2540 OF 2009 Abdul Razak Habib Ashrafi. .. Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.. .. Respondents. Mr. S. Z. Memon for the petitioner. Ms. G.S. Joglekar for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.C. Singh i/by G.C. Singh for respondent nos. 2 to 4. Mr. R.V. Lokhande with Mr. D.A. Nalawade, GP., for respondent no.11. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. : The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation not to sanction the plan submitted by the respondent for construction of the building. 2 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a tenant in some portion and the respondent builder has given him an assurance that he would be provided with an accommodation to run a shop in the newly constructed building. He also contended that when information was sought from the Municipal Corporation it was found that the respondent Builder has made no provision to accommodate the petitioner in any shop. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the respondent builder has not made any provision for the petitioner in the building to be newly constructed by the respondents. If the respondents in spite of an agreement have not made any provision in the building, it is for the petitioner to file a civil suit and enforce the agreement between him and the respondent builder. If any civil suit is already filed, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek appropriate reliefs in the said suit. Extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to enforce the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent builder. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( J. N. Patel, J) (C.L. PANGARKAR,, J)