1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.4 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2005 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2051 OF 2005 C.P. No.4/08: Sagun Surbha Saval. ...Petitioner. Vs. CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board & Ors. ...Respondents. .... C.P. No.5/08: Shilpa Chandrakant Sawant. ...Petitioner. Vs. CEO, Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Deepak T. Raut for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Govilkar for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. March 11, 2008. 2 P.C.: In the order of the Division Bench dated 26th April 2006, it was observed that in the two Writ Petitions before the Court (Writ Petition 2051 of 2005 and Writ Petition 2032 of 2005), the Petitioners were a niece and uncle who were claiming separate tenements in the reconstructed building. Learned Counsel for the Housing Board and its authorities pointed out that in the vacation notice issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976, the names of both these persons were shown only against one tenement. The Division Bench observed that it was the case of the landlord that there was only one and not two tenements and therefore, he had kept one tenement vacant and ready for rehabilitation of both the Petitioners together. The Division Bench in its order dated 26th April 2006 observed that the Petitioners in both the matters may occupy that tenement which is ready and may produce on the next date of hearing additional evidence in support of their contention that there were two separate tenements in respect of two separate tenancies under the earlier landlord. 3 2. On 12th September September 2006, both the Writ Petitions were withdrawn on the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners with liberty to institute suits for the relief which was sought in the petitions. The Court has been informed that no suit has been filed as of date. Be that as it may, in the affidavits in reply which have been filed on behalf of the owner and the developer, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the present proceedings, it has been stated that Tenement No.602 is available at present and a key of the said tenement would be handed over to the Petitioners in both the aforesaid Writ Petitions. The same statement is contained in paragraph 14 of the affidavit in reply wherein it is stated as follows : “Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the said Flat No.602 has been kept and is vacant even as on today. The same can be handed over to the Petitioner and Petitioner No.2 jointly, as communicated earlier. The Petitioner shall have to enter into a written agreement on payment of stamp duty, and also will have to pay the arrears of assessment, outgoings, as has been done by all other allottees.” 3. In view of the aforesaid statement which has been made on 4 behalf of Fifth and Sixth Respondents, no case has been made out for the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that within a period of two weeks from today, the Petitioners shall enter into an agreement jointly with the owner and the developer. Learned Counsel for the Fifth and Sixth Respondents states that the benefit of the same agreement which has been entered into with the other allottees shall be extended to the Petitioners on the same terms and conditions including in regard to the payment of the sums due and outgoings. Learned Counsel for the Fifth and Sixth Respondents states that the premises are vacant and that no third party rights have been created in respect of the premises. ....