bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 727 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 727 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 727 OF 2008 Ms.Chandrika Bahadur Jassawalla & ors. ... Appellants (Ori.Plaintiffs) v/s The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors. ... Respondents Mr.B.H.Vyas with R.R.Pande i/by Diwakar Dwiwedi forthe appellants. Mr.S.P.Thorat for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.E.Shroff for the respondent No.3 - Shroff Son’s Consultancy Pvt.Ltd. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 25TH JULY, 2008 25TH JULY, 2008 25TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The appellants have challenged the order passed by the City Civil Court on 9.7.2008. That order has not been annexed to the memo of appeal. However, a certified copy of the same has been produced. In that order, the learned Trial Court has noted that the appellants were required to move out of the premises which they were occupying as the building was in a dilapidated condition. The appellants had filed a motion seeking a direction to the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (in short MHADA) to provide them transit accommodation at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion with 2 three rooms. The learned Judge has recorded the statement made on behalf of MHADA that it does not construct transit accommodation of three rooms and there was no rule or policy of MHADA to allot such a accommodation. However, the Estate Manager of MHADA who was present in Court had stated that the transit accommodation of 225 sq.ft. would be provided to the plaintiffs i.e. all the plaintiffs together would be allowed 225 sq.ft. The plaintiffs however have not availed of the accommodation which was sought to be given to them. According to the learned advocate for MHADA, in fact, the plaintiffs have also visited the accommodation and have refused to accept it. He submits that even today accommodation is available for the plaintiffs to avail of at Bldg.No.12, Flat No.204, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, admeasuring 225 sq.ft. He submits that if the appellants contend that they have not received any intimation about these premises, the appellants may visit the office of MHADA and they would be given the allotment letter. He submits that a copy of the same will also be sent to the appellants by hand-delivery by today. In the event, the appellants refuse to accept the service of this allotment letter, MHADA will serve the same on them by all modes of service including by pasting a copy of the same on the premises in which the appellants reside today. 3 2. Mr.Thorat,learned advocate for the MHADA states that the building is in a dilapidated condition and could endanger the life of the appellants. He submits therefore that the appellants should be directed to vacate the premises forthwith and if they desire some time to vacate, they should be given a minimum possible period to vacate at their own risk. 3. In the circumstances, the following order is passed:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The MHADA will serve a copy of the allotment letter upon the appellants by today. (iii) The appellants, on an application made by the advocate representing them, are permitted to continue in the premises for a week from today at their own risk. (iv) In the event the appellants do not vacate the premises within the aforesaid period, MHADA may adopt all necessary procedures, in 4 accordance with law, to evict them.