1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.679 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 847 OF 2009 M/s. Jayesh Builders .....Appellant Versus Arvind H. Patel & Anr. .....Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Singh i/b. Ms. Harsha Rele, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Girin N. Pandit, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Respondents filed Special Civil Suit No.37 of 2009 against the Appellants for specific performance of agreement dated 5th April, 2003 for permanent alternative accommodation. In this suit, they filed notice of motion at exhibit “2” for appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, injunction restraining the Appellants from creating third party interest in the suit property and further directions to Appellants to pay arrears of compensation from April, 2007 to December, 2008 and continue to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards the compensation from January, 2009. By the order impugned, the Trial Court restrained the Appellants from creating third party rights in the suit property. The Appellants were also directed to pay arrears of compensation of Rs.10,000/- p.m. from April, 2007 to April, 2009 and thereafter, to pay further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. w.e.f. from May, 2009. 3. The Respondents’ suit is based on agreement dated 5th April, 2003 between themselves and the Appellants for permanent alternative accommodation. In this agreement, by virtue of clause 3, the Appellants agreed to pay Rs.5000/- p.m. to the Respondents towards compensation for temporary alternative accommodation for the initial period of 18 months. By 2 clause 4, it was specifically agreed that after completion of 18 months, if the permanent alternative accommodation is not handed over to the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs, the Appellants shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m.. There is no dispute that the building in question is already demolished by the Appellants and thereafter, for the initial period of 18 months compensation @ Rs.5000/- p.m. is already paid to the Respondents. However, thereafter the Appellants did not pay compensation to the Respondents @ Rs. 10,000/- as agreed and therefore, the notice of motion was taken out by the Respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that the construction of permanent alternative accommodation could not be completed because of the dispute between one Vasant Shinde, Uma More and the present Appellants. Be that as it may, the present Respondents could not be deprived from compensation as agreed, especially when they are not at fault. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order so far as directions to Appellants to pay arrears from April, 2007 to April, 2009 @ Rs.10,000/- and continue to pay compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- from May, 2009. So far as the directions contained in clause (2) of the operative part of the order is concerned, the Appellants is thereby restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property. It is not disputed that the Appellants have not even commenced construction of building providing permanent alternative accommodation to the Respondents and similarly other situated persons. In this circumstances, the interest of justice will be subserved by giving liberty to the Appellants to apply to the Trial Court for modification of this part of order after settlement of their dispute with Uma More and Vasant Shinde in Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2005. The Appeal from Order is disposed of, in above terms. 5. In view of the disposal the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.847 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)