1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.385/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.465/2009 Smt.Jyoti Suresh More. ..Appellant -VERSUS- Smt.Hira Baban More and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.P.M.Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.S.G.Surana, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. .......... CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Appellant/original Plaintiff filed L.C.Suit No.4272/2005 for declaration that the Appellant is eligible for alternative permanent accommodation. The Appellant also filed the Notice of Motion against the Respondents and obtained interim relief of injunction restraining the Respondents from dispossessing her from the transit accommodation. Respondent No.2, thereafter, took out the present 2 Notice of Motion at Exhibit-8 for directing the Appellant to shift to another temporary accommodation i.e. Room No.509, Building No.2, Ramshyam Wadi, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-40028 from the existing transit accommodation namely Room No.359, Ramshyam Wadi, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West). This notice of motion was taken out by the Respondent No.2 as the transit accommodation which is in possession of the Appellant is required to be demolished. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant made a grievance that the premises where he is shifted has no water connection. This submission is denied by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 by pointing out that the occupation certificate is already granted by the Corporation in respect of the building in which the Appellant is proposed to be shifted. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 further submitted that there is dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 about entitlement of the permanent alternative accommodation and therefore, at present the permanent alternative accommodation cannot be given to the Appellant and the same shall be given as per the order passed by the Trial Court at the time of disposal of the suit. The Appellant is not being dispossessed but she is being asked to shift to the another alternative accommodation. The shifting is necessitated as the transit accommodation in possession of the Appellant is required to be demolished for carrying out the development work. 3 4. In my view, no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. Accordingly, the Appeal From Order is dismissed. In view of disposal of the appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of. JUDGE