*1* nms.2943.09.s.2058.09.219.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2943 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2058 OF 2009 Kumar Vijaya Laxmi Putta and others. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- M/s Sunrise Lifestyles & Homes Pvt.Ltd. and others. ..Defendants .......... Mr.J.P.Sen i/b Federal Rashmikant for the Plaintiffs. Mr.N.Engineer i/b DSK Legal, for the Defendant No.1. Mr.P.G.Lad, for the Defendant No.2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This suit was originally filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The claim was that the Plaintiff was in uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the room Nos.6 to 9 on first floor, K-block, Sitaram Building, Dr.D.N.Road, Mumbai. 2 At the ad-interim stage, it was informed that the building is in highly dilapidated condition and it is likely to fall down at any time. In fact a part of it had collapsed because of such condition. 3 It is stated that the demolition was done and the redevelopment work is allowed to go on. Thereafter, the suit has been converted into substantive suit claiming rights in the property and the plaint has been amended in that behalf. 4 At the hearing of this Notice of Motion, a grievance is made on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the demolition work has been completed. *2* nms.2943.09.s.2058.09.219.sxw There are temporary alternate accommodations available with the Defendant No.1 and the tenants/occupants have been put in possession thereof. The list as per the records of MHADA is relied on for this purpose. 5 Mr.Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, states that the Plaintiffs were in physical possession and they were in continuous use and occupation before they were forcibly dispossessed, therefore, it is legitimate that they may be given alternate accommodation subject to the final order in the suit and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on the issue of title. 6 At the same time, the affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 but their Advocate is absent. 7 Mr.Engineer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant No.1, submits that in the light of the pending suit, the possession of alternate accommodation has not been either given to the Plaintiffs or the Defendant Nos.3 to 5. He submits that the Defendant No. 1 will abide by the Court’s order in that behalf. 8 In these circumstances, only order that can be passed is to direct the Defendant No.2 MHADA to scrutinize the list of occupants and after giving opportunity to both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 to substantiate their claim of use and occupation of the premises in their possession prior to demolition; to make appropriate arrangement in terms of the agreement executed by the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.2 MHADA may issue notice and call for necessary particulars in this behalf from the parties to the suit and make appropriate arrangement within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9 The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)