1 WP3551-3561.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3551 OF 2011 Shri Dipak Ganpat Manjarekar & anr. ... Petitioners v/s The Dy. Collector (ECN./REM) and Competent Authorty, Chembur & ors. ... Respodnents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3561 OF 2011 Shri Anil Tambi Ramswami & anr. ... Petitioners v/s The Dy. Collector (ECN./REM) and Competent Authorty, Chembur & ors. ... Respodnents Mr.S.V.Pitre for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.V.A.Sugdare and S. Garud i/by Khaitan & Jayakar for Resp. No.2 in both petitions. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.1, 3 and 4 in both petitions. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED: 3RD MAY, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel Mr.Pitre for the petitioners and Mr.Kumbhakoni for respondent No.2. 2 WP3551-3561.11 2. These petitions pertain to the eviction proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (in short, the Slums Act). The names of the petitioners in both the petitions are entered into Annexure-II and held eligible for permanent alternate accommodation. These petitioners filed Writ Petition (L) No. 2341 of 2010. This petition was disposed of by the Division Bench by an order dated 22.10.2010. In this order, petitioners statement that they will shift to the transit accommodation was accepted. Since this order was not complied, the respondent developer approached the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Eviction) under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slums Act. The competent authority directed the petitioners’ eviction. This order was challenged before the Commissioner under Section 35 of the Slums Act. The said order was confirmed. 3. The only grievance of Mr.Pitre is that the petitioners be given rent in lieu of the transit accommodation. Mr.Kumbhakoni opposes this request. It is submitted by Mr.Kumbhakoni that already petitioners have exercised option for transit accommodation. Accordingly, respondent No.2 developer has already made an arrangement. The transit accommodations are ready and petitioners can shift to these accommodations at any time. In that view of the 3 WP3551-3561.11 matter and especially in view of the statement made by the petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.2341 of 2010, now petitioners cannot back out and claim rent in view of the transit accommodations. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. 5. Mr.Pitre, at this stage, submit that the developer should give assurance that they will provide alternate permanent accommodation to the petitioners at the earliest. Mr.Kumbhakoni assures for the same on behalf of the partner of respondent No.2, who is present in the Court. This assurance is accepted. Respondent No.2 shall make an endeavour to complete the project as early as possible. 6. Mr.Pitre seeks some breathing time to shift to the transit accommodation. Mr.Kumbhakoni has no objection for granting some time. 7. In the above circumstances, 10 days’ time is granted to the petitioners to shift to the transit accommodations. 8. For the period of 10 days from today, parties shall maintain status-quo as of today. (RANJIT MORE, J.) 4 WP3551-3561.11 5 WP3551-3561.11