1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.660 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 827 OF 2009 Smt.Anandavati V.Mishra & Anr. ...Appellants (Orig.Plaintiffs) V/s. M/s.Rachna Developers & Marketing & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/y Khan Javed Akhtar for the appellants. Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.A.Thorat for respondent no.3. Ms.K.K.Sorren for B.M.C. .... CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs in L.C.Suit No.825 of 2009 impugning the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing their notice of motion. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that defendant nos.1 & 2 are not entitled to demolish the suit premises i.e. Room No.20, situated on 2nd floor, Shakti Villa Building, Lala Lajpatrai Road, Goraswadi, Malad (West), Mumbai 2 400 064 without following due process of law and without providing permanent alternative accommodation admeasuring 1000 sq.ft.carpt area to the plaintiff in lieu of the suit premises. Further relief of injunction is sought against defendant nos.1 & 2 from demolishing the suit premises i.e. Room No.20 without following due process of law. 3. It is seen that in this case, plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the premises and she is the mother of plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.1 has entered into a Conveyance dated 10th July 2006 with defendant no.1 and in so far as defendant no.2 is concerned, he claims to be a tenant in respect of Room No.20. The Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 states that plaintiff no.2 will not be entitled to an area in excess of area to be allotted under the development agreement after the development is complete. He further states that development will be carried out after obtaining the necessary permissions including Commencement Certificate as per law. The statements made are accepted. In 3 so far as injunction sought by the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant nos.1 & 2 from vacating them from Room No.20, except after following due process of law, the finding indicates that not only the possession was handed over to defendant nos.1 & 2 but a part of the premises, are also demolished. The plaint itself indicates that the address of the plaintiff is different from the suit premises. It is, therefore, appears to be a position that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit premises. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant this injunction. In the end, in the result, in view of the acceptance of the statements made by the Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2. The appeal stands disposed of. It is made clear that all issues are kept open before the Trial Court. 4. As the appeal is disposed of, the civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)