1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2548 OF 2007 Kasabai Datta Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.G.Damle for the petitioner Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for respondent nos.4 to 10 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Vacation Notice dated 26.08.2005 issued by the respondent, Mumbai Board Repairs and Reconstruction Board under section 90(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976. 2 3. It is not in dispute that part of the building known as Pavawala Building has collapsed and that it has to be redeveloped. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be in respect of the other occupants in her tenements. In so far as respondent nos.4 to 10 are concerned, the stand taken by the respondent Board is that they were accommodated in transit accommodation subject to giving an undertaking to this Honourable Court that they would not claim any right of rehabilitation in the premises after repairs or reconstruction subject to any Order that may be obtained against the petitioner herein or any agreement between them. Thus, it is ipso facto clear that the respondent nos.4 to 10 were granted temporary alternate accommodation by the Board in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order passed by this court in the said writ petition taking into consideration that if the building is to be reconstructed, it is the case of the respondent, that the petitioner only be rehabilitated in the reconstructed building. 3 4. We make it clear that in case the petitioner complies with the notice and applies for transit accommodation, the respondents would allot transit accommodation to the petitioner and would also rehabilitate her in case the building is reconstructed. 5. We find that the challenge of the petitioner to the Vacation Notice under section 90(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 have been issued to respondent nos.4 to 10 who were neither tenants nor the occupiers of the said premises and it ought to have been issued only in her name, has no meaning as the petitioners rights are well protected. 6. With these observation, petition is dismissed. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )