* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5049 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1908 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.902 OF 2003 Ramesh C.Jain .....Applicant V/s. The Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. .....Respondents. ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5050 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1909 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.905 OF 2003 Sandeep D. Gala .....Applicant V/s. The Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. .....Respondents. ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5051 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1910 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.903 OF 2003 Chetan Jain .....Applicant V/s. The Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. .....Respondents. ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5265 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2028 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 5552 OF 2001 Smt.Mary Ruzario Fernandes .....Applicant V/s. Chairman of Mah.Hsg.Area Dev.Board & Ors. .....Respondents. ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5053 OF 2008 * 2 * IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1911 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.904 OF 2003 Damji J. Gala .....Applicant V/s. The Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. .....Respondents. ========== Mr.M.M.Vashi, adv.for appellants. Mr.S.P.Thorat, adv.for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Vinod Mahadik, adv.for respondent no.4. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Zal Andhyrarujina i/by. M/s.Bachhubhai Munim & Co., adv.for respondents no.5 and 6. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 7TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This is a common order on all the Civil Applications taken out for interim reliefs in the above five appeals. The applicants, inter-alia had filed suits for declaration that the scheme dated 6th September, 1998 and the No-Objection Certificate dated 24th August, 1995 issued by The Municipal Housing Area Development Board in favour of respondents no.5 and 6 is bad, illegal and liable to be set aside. The applicants also sought direction to the respondents to produce the records in respect of the sanction scheme, NOC, Inspection Reports, sanctioned plans, IOD/CC etc. By prayer clause (bb), the applicants sought interim injunction to restrain * 3 * the respondents from dispossessing them from their respective premises in execution of the notice and/or demolishing their respective structures. There are further interim reliefs sought at prayer clause (c), (d), (e) and (f). There is no permanent relief of injunction sought in the plaint. By the impugned judgment and decree the suit filed by the applicants has been dismissed. 2. After filing of the suit, the applicants had taken out Notices of Motion for interim injunction to restrain the respondents from removing the applicants from their respective premises without providing alternate shop of equivalent area. By the order dated 17th January, 2005 the Notices of Motion were allowed. The respondents no.5 and 6 who have undertaken the work of redevelopment of the buildings preferred appeals against the orders to this Court and sought stay of operation of the interim orders. During the hearing of the applications, the said respondents undertook that they will provide temporary alternate accommodation to the applicants equivalent to the area already in their occupation. Accordingly, the respondents constructed temporary alternate accommodation for the applicants on the same property. Then, by the order dated 30th April, 2007 the applicants were directed to shift to the temporary alternate accommodation constructed by the respondents. By the same order, hearing of the suits was expedited, with a direction that the suits be disposed off on/or before 30th April, 2008. Pursuant to the order passed on the Appeals from Orders, the applicants shifted to the alternate accommodation provided by the respondents. Thereafter, the building in which their original premises were situated, were demolished * 4 * for the purpose of redevelopment. Mr.Vashi, the learned counsel for the applicants submits the applicants have now taken out Civil Application in the present appeal proceedings for an interim relief to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them from the temporary alternate accommodation. Mr.Vashi, submits that the if the applicants are forced to vacate the temporary alternate accommodation, the present appeals will become infructuous. It is common ground that in the plan sanctioned for the purpose of redevelopment, there is no provision made for shops in the buildings to be constructed equivalent to the area in possession of the applicants today. Consequently, these respondents in the event of the applicants succeeding in the appeal, will not be able to provide them with accommodation equivalent to that in their occupation today. In these circumstances, the applicants are entitled to the interim relief as sought. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the work of redevelopment will be hampered by this order, it is necessary that the hearing of the appeal is expedited. The Civil Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]