1 wp10035.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10035 OF 2009 Meghji Bhuvan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Hussain Ali Badaksh & Anr. ...Respondents Ms Alpana Shah i/b I.R.JOshi & Co. for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Naik for the respondent no.1 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents. Perused the affidavit dated 6th October 2010 filed by the 1st respondent. In the affidavit it is stated that the only work which is being carried out by the 1st respondent is the painting work in the premises in dispute and wooden work. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit the first respondent has stated thus : 5 I say that when I received a notice from the petitioner society alleging that I had made additions/alterations in flat no.16 and shop nos.1 and 2, I immediately by my Advocate s letter dated 27/2/2008 addressed a letter to the Advocate for the petitioner society denying that I am carrying out any structural work. Further I have stated that I am carrying out painting work in the premises which is include white-wash and oil painting and making 2 wp10035.sxw necessary wooden works since the premises are in dilapidated conditions. I say that building premises in which the petitioner society is situated is more than 75 years old and require urgent repairs to the entire building. I say that the repair work carried out by me are tenantable repairs and no structural additions or alternations were carried out as alleged by the petitioners. 2 In view of the statements made in the affidavit, as of today, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. If any attempt is made by the first respondent to carry out any work other than what is mentioned in the affidavit, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for appropriate interim relief before the Co-operative Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the first respondent is not allowing the others to use the common toilet. However, the said grievance cannot be considered by this Court as the Co-operative Court did not grant any relief in that behalf. The grievance about the use of common toilet is not made before the Co-operative Court and the order of the Co- operative Court has not been challenged by the petitioner. 3 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. 4 The dispute shall be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. JUDGE