1 WP No.1040/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1040 of 2011 Varshila @ Vatsalabai U. Londhe ... Petitioner versus (i) N.H. Harsora Pvt.Ltd (ii)Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority ... Respondents ... Mr.A.K. Patil i/b R.M.Bhandari for the petitioner Mr.Snehal Shah with Ms.Akanksha and Rashid Khan i/b Purnanand & Co. for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 3rd March 2011 P.C. 1. I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of an extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the impugned order is interlocutory and in my view, sufficient grounds have not been made out for interference at the interlocutory stage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner must be allowed to use the temporary toilet blocks erected by the respondent landlord on the first floor of the suit building. It appears 2 WP No.1040/11 that the suit building is very old. The petitioner herself claims that she is a tenant therein for a period of more than 60 years. It appears that parts of the suit building and the old toilet blocks are dilapidated. Respondent landlord wants to redevelop the property in accordance with law. More than 70% of the occupants whose consent is required by law for redevelopment have already given the consent for redevelopment. It appears that the petitioner along with few other tenants are the only stumbling block for the redevelopment. In order to make a provision for the willing tenants, respondent landlord has constructed temporary toilet blocks on the first floor. Petitioner claims a mandatory injunction to use the said toilet blocks. Admittedly, petitioner has not consented for construction of the new temporary toilet blocks which appear to have constructed by the landlord with the help of and/or with the contribution of the other tenants. Admittedly, the new temporary toilet blocks have been constructed in the year 2009 and were not a part of the tenancy nor were they an amenity to the suit premises. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot claim a right to use the said toilet blocks constructed by the respondent landlord for the other existing and co-operating tenants. In the circumstances, writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)