1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 807 OF 2009 WITH C.A.NO.1005 OF 2009 Nancy Ramchandani and ors. ..Appellant. Vs. Ashok Patel and anr. ..Respondents Mrs. Nita Mandhyan for the Appellant. Mr. V.B. Naik i/by Thakore Jeriwala for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 16th Sept.2009. PC: 1 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs impugning an order dated 10.6.2009 passed by the City Civil Court in the plaintiffs motion . By the said order, the defendant No.1 was permitted to act as per an order of the B.M.C. dated 26.12.2006 and leave has been granted to defendant No.1 to use the suit premises for bank purpose. The plaintiffs are the members of condominium covered by the Maharashtra Ownership 2 Flats Act, 1963. It is their case that the defendant No.1 had purchased the premises which is residential but it was illegally converted into commercial premises. In order to effect conversion, he had demolished certain walls. The defendant No.1 in the said suit initially produced IOD which required that he should take permission of other members of the condominium. In the circumstances, city civil court has initially granted injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from carrying out construction for converting the suit premises into commercial premises. Matter was carried in appeal and this court disposed off the appeal by directing that the defendant No.1 should restore the walls of the premises to its original condition. Leave was however granted to defendant No.1 to pursue his representation before the BMC and B.M.C. was directed to decide the representation after hearing the plaintiffs. It appears that thereafter, BMC after hearing the concerned parties, concluded that the Condition No. 3 12 which pertained to obtaining prior permission was required to be maintained. Thereafter, however, the defendant No.1 had submitted fresh amended plans for conversion of the premises into bank and the BMC has granted permission and commencement certificate by waiving the condition No.12. Now, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No.653 of 2007 challenging the grant of permission, which is pending in this court and the Rule has been issued in the same. The defendant No.1 has also filed a separate Writ Petition No.267 of 2006 challenging the original condition No.12. It is common ground that both the petitions are being heard together. In my view, since the structure for running a bank is a totally different structure and since the BMC has chosen to waive the condition No.12, the question of granting leave of the court does not survive as the erection of structure pertaining to a bank was not a fact situation before this court when the order dated 28.11.2005 in A. O. No.1031 of 2005 was passed. In 4 the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, I am making it clear that since the same interim reliefs are claimed in the writ petition filed by the present appellants, the rejection of this appeal will not come in their way from applying for interim relief, if they chose to do so. Appeal therefore, stands dismissed. Parties will however, maintain status quo as of today for one week from today. All contentions available to the parties in the writ petitions including the contentions relating to the of grant of interim relief are kept open. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1005 OF 2009 . As the main appeal is dismissed, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)