pvr １ wp1618-07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1618 OF 2007 Great Western Buildings Tenants Co-op. Hsg.Society Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Arif Bookwala, Sr.Advocate i/b. Ms.U.M.Zaveri, for Petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.S.Purohit i/b. Vimadalal & Co., for Respondent nos.4 to 7, 9,11 to 19, 21,23 & 25. Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 7th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. Mr.Dhakephalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent nos.4,5,8,9, 11 to 19, 21, 23 & 25 states that these respondents are part owners of the building which is subject pvr ２ wp1618-07 matter of this petition. He further states that these respondents are willing to redevelop the property. He states that the members of the petitioner-Society who in law are entitled to be accommodated in the redevelopment project will be accommodated in accordance with law. He further states that the landlords have applied for various permissions that are necessary to be obtained for redevelopment of the property and considering that the permissions from various authorities are required, the landlords should be given at least four years time to complete the redevelopment of the project. 2. Mr.Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner-Society states that the members of the petitioner-society will co-operate with the landlords in redevelopment of the property and also give necessary consent to the landlords. pvr ３ wp1618-07 3. Mr.G.W.Mattos, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent nos.1 and 2 states that Respondent no.2 will communicate to the learned Advocate appearing for the aforesaid respondents, the documents which the landlords have to submit to respondent no.2 for obtaining its permission and the documents for redevelopment of the project within a period of four weeks from today. 4. The statements made by the learned Counsel appearing for parties recorded above are accepted. 5. In case the landlords are not able to complete the project within a period of four years from today, the landlords would be at liberty to apply for extension of time to this Court. Before moving such an application, a copy of the application shall be served on the petitioner society and other respondents. pvr ４ wp1618-07 6. In case, the landlords are not able to redevelop the property as per their statement and this order, the petitioner-society and its members shall be at liberty to apply to the authorities for redevelopment of the property in accordance with law. In case, such an application is made, the authority shall deal with such application in accordance with law. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 MHADA states that the amount that has been deposited by the petitioner-society with MHADA before filing of this petition will be refunded to the petitioner-society within a period of six weeks from today. The statement is accepted. The petition is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)