1 Writ Petition (L) No.978 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.978 OF 2010 Sarvodaya Jan Vikas Shangh ... Petitioner Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents Mr. M.M. Vashi for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Jogalekar for respondent No.1. Ms. Kiran Bagalia for the respondent No.2. Mr. Rajeev Ravi i/by M/s. Baliwala & Co. for the respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the notice/order dated 8th April, 2010, copy of which is annexed as Exhibits `G' and `G1' to the petition. By the said notice, the petitioners, who claim to be the occupants of Sarvodaya Staff Quarters, are directed to vacate the said premises and shift to alternate accommodation at Govandi as the building is old and dilapidated. 2. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 as the landlord/owner of the building may demolish the structure/building 2 Writ Petition (L) No.978 of 2010 thereby jeopardizing the rights of the members of the petitioners. In other words, the tenancy rights may not survive is their apprehension. 3. In this petition, we are not concerned with the interse rights of the members of the petitioners' trust and the respondent No.3. We are informed that proceedings between both are pending in the competent court. In this petition, we are concerned with a notice calling upon the members of the petitioners to vacate the premises in question. The premises in question are a building which is fairly old and dilapidated. After some arguments, it is not disputed that the building may not be safe for human occupation hereafter. 4. In such circumstances, we called upon Shri Vashi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to take instructions and state before the court as to whether the petitioners/their members would vacate the building and shift to the temporary accommodation at Govandi, Mumbai. After seeking instructions from the representative of the petitioners present in court, Shri Vashi states that the members of the petitioners' trust would shift to the temporary accommodation at Govandi, Mumbai. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the respondent No.2 MMRDA state that the temporary accommodation at Govandi, Mumbai is ready for 3 Writ Petition (L) No.978 of 2010 occupation by the petitioners and the petitioners/their members would be accommodated therein. 5. In the light of the statement made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on instructions from their authorised officers, we see no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction particularly with the impugned notice since the annexures to the petition and the photographs would demonstrate that the building is indeed unsafe for human occupation. As far as the interse rights of the parties are concerned, this is not the appropriate forum and it would be open for the petitioners to resort to such remedies as are permissible in law. The contentions raised in that behalf are kept open. Further, it would be open for the petitioners to move a representation to the respondent No.1 in case they desire to repair the structure and such representation shall be considered in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, Mr. Vashi states that the members of the petitioners have approached the authority and expressed their willingness to shift to any temporary accommodation which may be available and it may not be necessary to shift to the Transit Accommodation at Govandi Mumbai only. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that they have no instructions in this behalf. It is clarified that we have mentioned 4 Writ Petition (L) No.978 of 2010 the area (Govandi, Mumbai) only to indicate the temporary accommodation offered to the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to move the authorities and for them to take appropriate decision and our order will not prevent the parties from occupying any other premises as temporary accommodation. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.