ASN 1 Appeal-675.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURSIDICTION APPEAL LODGING NO.675 OF 2011 IN ARBITRTATION PETITION LODGING NO.989 OF 2011 Krishnakumar Mishra and anr. ..Appellants. Vs. Sun Shine Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr. Mandar Limaye with Reena Salunkhe for the Appellants. Mr. Basant Tilokani with R.S. Jaisinghani for Respondent No.1. Mr. E.A. Sasi for Respondent No.2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 18 October 2011 PC: This appeal is directed against the order dated 23 September 2011 of the learned Trial Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition Lodging No.989 of 2011 filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the Arbitration Petition requiring the appellants to comply with the undertaking contained in the order dated 01 July 2011 of the learned Trial Judge. The appellants are given time upto 15 October 2011 by the learned Trial Judge to comply with the order dated 01 July 2011. Temporary alternate accommodation is also made available to the appellants. ASN 2 Appeal-675.sxw 2 So far as the order dated 01 July 2011 is concerned, the learned Trial Judge also records and accepts the undertakings given by the builders Sun Shine Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel for the present appellants further submits that the shop presently in occupation of the appellants is admeasuring 265.36 sq. ft. and the developer has to give additional carpet area of 25% making an aggregate area of 332sq.ft. but the building plan previously sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation only shows shop admeasuring 283 sq. ft. and therefore, the Developer will not be in a position to provide appellants additional 25% carpet area. 3 The learned Trial Judge has also recorded the statement made by the developer that the application will be made for sanction of the modified plans to ensure that the appellants will get the shop admeasuring 332 sq. ft. 4 The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in case the Municipal Corporation does not sanction the modified plans, the appellant along respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will not get shop admeasuring 332sq.ft. 5 An undertaking has been given by the developer that if for any reason alternate accommodation is less than the above area, the court can always accommodate the appellants from out of the free sale component. In view of the above, we called upon the learned counsel for the Developer to clarify the position. The learned counsel for the ASN 3 Appeal-675.sxw developer states that in case the developer is not in a position to provide the appellant together with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 a shop admeasuring 332sq.ft. on the ground floor of the rehabilitated building, the developer will provide them a shop on the ground floor of free sale component which is also going to be a commercial building. The undertaking being given by the learned counsel on behalf of the developer is recorded and accepted. 6 The agreement to incorporate the assurances and the undertakings mentioned in the order dated 01 July 2011 and 23 September 2011 of the learned Trial Judge and the undertaking incorporated in the present order shall be executed by the developer in favour of the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within one week from today. The appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall vacate the premises by 2 November 2011. 7 Appeal is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )