1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2644 OF 2008 Life Insurance Corporation of India ..Appellant VS. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.R.A.Dada Senior Advocate along with Ms. Poornima Advani, Himanshu Kode and Omprakash Jha i/b The Law Point for Appellant Mr.Milind More AGP for Respondent No.1 Ms.Trupti Puranik for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 (B.M.C.) Mr.Shoaib I. Memon for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appellant which is a public body, has filed Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2008 challenging the permission granted by the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation for reconstruction of a multi-storyed 2 building on its property i.e. C.S.No. 170, Old No.1/170 located at Malbar Hill, Walkeshwar Division, Mumbai-400 006 admeasuring about 872 sq. mtrs. The said petition has been admitted by the Single Bench of the Original Side on 9th February, 2009 and by the very same order, certain interim directions were issued and subject to those directions, parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the structure already put up. However, on 3rd March, 2009 on an oral motion, clarificatory order came to be passed which is a subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal. 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned order read as under: “1. With respect to order dated 9th February, 2009, it is clarified that respondent no.3 shall be entitled to use the premises and to carry out any furniture work in the premises. The order granting status-quo prohibits respondent no.3 from carrying out any further construction, alteration or modification of any nature whatsoever in respect of the structure including constructing a loft or Mezzanine. 2. It is further clarified that the order dated 9th February, 2009, as clarified by the present order, shall be subject to any orders that may be passed in any proceedings, adopted or that may be adopted by the petitioner before any Court, Tribunal or Authority in respect of or concerning the premises, in any manner. ” 3 4. When this appeal appeared before the Court No.1, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo as on 23rd March, 2009 and that order has continued to operate till today. 5. During the pendency of this appeal and pursuant to the order passed on 9th February, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2008, the Architect has visited suit plot and submitted his report with the following findings: (1) No permission was sought in writing from the landlord by the Respondent. (2) No permission is passed by the landlord or L.I.C. To the Respondent. (3) It is noticed from the block and location plans, obtained from M.C.G.M., only ground floor structure is shown, that is “I ” wheareas in the sheet of the Respondent ’s Architect it is shown “II ” means the structure is of Ground+one upper story. (4) No notice under Section 499 was issued by the M.C.G.M. To the landlord for his information/intimation for permitting the applicant to reconstruct/repair the said premises 100%. (5) The ground floor structure is converted into ground + one more storey with mezzanine floor. Doing so F.S.I. is increased in consideration of the complete plot area. This might have 4 compensated in handing over the set back area of the plot to the Corporation without permission of Landlord. (6) Since this plot and the premises come under set back line of the road widening and C.R.Z. Act, within 500 meters no permission could be parted for reconstruction but 100% repairs could have been permitted. This is not reinstating of the old structures but new construction is erected in place of the old structure. (7) Though it is commercial premises whether permission from MHADA has been obtained or not, not known. (8) No doubt that the Respondent has right to repairs and reinstate the structures which are inhabitable and in dangerous conditions to occupy but not at the cost and risk of the landlord, and to encroach upon his rights. The report is submitted on merit of the case and as understood from the available document furnished by both the parties, without prejudice to anybody ’s rights. ” 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 disputes the findings recorded by the Architect. In any case, these are the issues which are required to be heard and decided in the pending writ petition. It appears from the record, nevertheless, that an entirely new building 5 has come up on the suit plot which is owned by the appellant and the appellant has already initiated eviction proceedings against the respondent no.3 under the Public Premises Act. 7. In these obtaining circumstances, in our opinion, the pending petition deserves to be heard expeditiously and the appellant will have to apply for the same before the Bench dealing with the said petition. This appeal arising from interlocutory and clarificatory order, deserves to be disposed off by directing the parties to maintain status-quo as on 23rd March, 2009 in respect of suit structure till the pending petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2008 is heard and decided. 8. Hence, we direct that the parties shall maintain status-quo as on 23rd March, 2009 in respect of suit property till Writ Petition No.2644 of 2008 is finally decided and the appellant is at liberty to apply for the early disposal of the said petition. 9. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [ B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. ] 6