1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1083 OF 2009 Iqbal Nakhwa & ors. ... Appellants v/s MHADA 7 ors. ... Respondents Mr.Asif Khatri i/by Mr.Sanjeev S. Hariakar for appellants. Mr.P.G.Lad for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.J.Narula for the respondent No.4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. By an order dated 1.9.2009 the City Civil Court has refused to grant any interim relief to the appellants and has dismissed the notices of motion filed by the appellants. 2. Several attempts were made to settle this dispute, however, all the attempts have failed. 2 3. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants is that 19 persons are still residing in the premises which are to be redeveloped/reconstructed. It is submitted that the No Objection Certificate (in short, N.O.C.) which has been given by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (in short, MHADA) for redevelopment of the building does not take into consideration the fact that 70% of the occupants of the building have not consented to the redevelopment. It is also submitted that the builder i.e. the respondent No.4 cannot take law into its own hands and evict the persons who are still in the premises. 4. In my opinion, after considering the submissions advanced at the bar, the impugned order of the City civil Court cannot be faulted. There is no challenge at all in the plaint to the N.O.C. granted by MHADA to respondent No.4 for redevelopment of the building. Under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, certain duties are cast on the Board before repairs or reconstruction of dilapidated buildings are carried out. These duties include taking action for demolition of dangerous and dilapidated buildings or portions thereof, which are not capable of being repaired at reasonable expenses and in order to save human lives. Accordingly, 3 MHADA in exercise of its special powers under Section 77 of the Act, it has authorized respondent No.4 to reconstruct the building. 5. Undoubtedly, the builder cannot take any summary action for evicting the persons who are still occupying the premises. The power of summary eviction of occupiers is vested in MHADA under Section 95A of the Act. On the refusal of any occupant to vacate the premises on being approached by the holder of N.O.C., it is competent for the Board to effect summary eviction of such occupiers, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapters VI and VII of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Any person who refuses to vacate the premises or obstructs such eviction, is liable to be convicted and punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.5000/- or with both. 6. In my opinion, since the builder i.e. the respondent No. 4 is willing to accommodate the appellants on the same terms and conditions which were made available to other occupiers of the property, there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the City Civil Court. It appears that out of 61 persons, 42 have already taken an alternative accommodation and/or have been paid compensation for 4 being housed in transit accommodation. It is only because these 19 persons who are insisting on better terms that problems have arisen between them and respondent No.4. 7. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the City Civil Court. If indeed the appellants continue to be recalcitrant and refuse to vacate the premises, it is always open for MHADA to exercise its powers under Section 95A of the Act. 8. Appeal dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, Civil Application No.1332 of 2009 also stands dismissed. ..... 5