1 wp525.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2011 Fancy Kundanmal Jain & Ors. .....Petitioners. Vs. Govind Kabra Bhadricha & Ors. ......Respondents. Mr. Sachin M. Bandkar for the Petitioners. Mr.Ashutosh Kumbhkoni with Mr. Shardul Singh and Mrs. Prachi Raj Mhatre i/by M.S.Bodhanwalla & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vaibhav M. Parshurami for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Ms. S.M. Modle for Respondent No.5. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 9, 2011 P.C.: The Petitioners claim to be tenants in certain immovable property bearing CS No.400 of Bhuleshwar Division situated at 7/15, 9A & 9B, Laxmichand Deepchand Mansion, Navjeevanwadi, Hamalwadi, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai. Their grievance is in regard to the revalidation granted by the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board on 17 January 2011 to the First Respondent, who is the Developer, to a no objection certificate issued 2 wp525.11.sxw ssm by the Board on 4 November 2006. Initially, the Board had granted its NOC on 4 November 2006 for the redevelopment of the property. The NOC was revalidated until 3 November 2010 and was extended on 17 January 2011 up to 3 November 2011. 2 The developer had instituted writ proceedings before this Court, since MHADA was not taking appropriate steps under Section 95(A) of the MHADA Act, 1976. Out of 91 tenants, 89 had furnished irrevocable consents to the redevelopment of the property under Development Control Regulation 33(7). In the order of this Court dated 23 December 2010, the Court noted that 61 tenants had handed over possession. (As of date, the Court has been informed that 62 tenants have vacated). The Court by its previous order, directed the Chief Officer of MHADA to take a final decision on the Application for revalidation of the NOC which was then pending and recorded the statement made on behalf of MHADA that once the NOC is revalidated, necessary steps would be taken under Section 95(A) in respect of those tenants who were obstructing the redevelopment. 3 Following the order of this Court, the NOC was revalidated by MHADA on 17 January 2011. 3 wp525.11.sxw ssm 4 The only grievance which is urged on behalf of the Petitioners, who are 13 in number, is that the developer had filed an Indemnity Bond before MHADA stating that no suits were pending, whereas, the landlord has instituted several suits for eviction which are pending before the Small Causes Court. Hence, it is urged that the revalidation of the NOC was obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation. In substance, the grievance of the Petitioners is that while on the one hand the landlord is proceeding ahead with the redevelopment on the assurance that all the existing tenants would be given alternate accommodation on ownership basis, on the other hand, the suits for eviction are being pressed before the Small Causes Court and if those suits are decreed many of the tenants would be dis-housed. In order to meet this grievance, counsel appearing on behalf of the First and Second Respondents, who are the developers, states on instructions that all the existing tenants, who are certified by MHADA, shall be given permanent alternate accommodation in the redeveloped building on ownership basis and that consequently the suits for eviction against the tenants whose names have been certified by MHADA shall not be pressed. The statement as aforesaid has been accepted. 4 wp525.11.sxw ssm 5 It has been submitted on behalf of the First and Second Respondents, that in the event that there are any disputes between the heirs inter-se of an existing tenant whose name has been certified by MHADA, such a dispute inter-se between the heirs of the tenant would have to be resolved independently. We however, record and accept the assurance which has been made by counsel appearing on behalf of First and Second Respondents that in view of the scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33(7), the First and Second Respondents shall not press the suits for eviction against certified tenants. 6 In view of the aforesaid assurance, which has been made on behalf of the First and Second Respondents, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that the grievance of the Petitioners has been duly fulfilled and no further reliefs are pressed at the hearing of the proceedings. The Petitioners have also assured the Court through their counsel that all the Petitioners will duly co-operate in the scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33(7). The building, the Court has been informed, was constructed in 1894 and is in urgent need for redevelopment. We clarify that in the event that there is any dispute in respect of a sub-tenancy or as between the heirs of a certified tenant, that would be resolved before the competent 5 wp525.11.sxw ssm forum. 7 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents states that in pursuance of the previous order passed by this Court, notices have already been issued under Section 95(A) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 and the authority shall take necessary steps to implement those notices within a period of four weeks from today. 8 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)