1 AO 273 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.273 OF 2011 Arth Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. .. appellant. -versus MCGM and ors .. Respondents. Mr. D. H. Mehta and Ms. Naseem Patrawala i/b M/s Pravin Mehta and Mithi Co. for the appellant Mr. J. J. Xavier, for the respondent. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATED: 20th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order, Notice of Motion for interim relief taken out by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. There is no dispute that the disputed area is a set- back area, the FSI of which has been already permitted to be used by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant will have to hand over set-back area to the respondent No.1 corporation. The prayer in the Notice of Motion is on the apprehension that the set back area will be used by respondent No.1 corporation for re-locating or housing or allowing hawkers whether licensed or unlicensed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions states that as on today there are already four hawkers occupying the set back area. He states that the 2 AO 273 OF 2011 respondent will not allow any other hawker to shift to the set back area till C. A. Nos 4156-4157 of 2002, is decided by the Apex Court. 4. The aforesaid statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents made on instructions is accepted. In view of aforesaid statement, as of today, there is no apprehension that the set back area will be used by the respondents for allowing any hawkers to do business except four licensed hawkers who are already there. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. 5. In the event, any cause of action arises in future, the appellant can always file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for preventing the respondents from using set back area for relocating or housing other hawkers. 6. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent, it is not necessary to interference with the interim order passed by the trial Court. Findings recorded in the impugned order are tentative findings and while finally deciding the suit, the trial Court will not be influenced by the prima facie findings. Subject to what is observed above, Appeal from Order is disposed of. 7. Civil Application No.641 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A. S. OKA, J.)