1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.755 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.939 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.755 OF 2009 Shri Ramesh Shivram Mohite .... Appellant Vs. Smt. Vishaka Vasant Mohite & Others .... Respondents None for the Appellant. Shri A.C. Singh i/b M/s. Ashwinikumar & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 to 18. Ms K.K. Soraan for the BMC. S/Shri J.S. Kini i/b Suresh Dubey for Respondent Nos.20 to 24. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.983 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1234 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.983 OF 2009 Smt. Vishaka Vasant Mohite & Others .... Appellants Vs. The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Others .... Respondents Shri A.C. Singh i/b M/s. Ashwinikumar & Co. for the Appellants. 2 Ms K.K. Soraan for the BMC. S/Shri J.S. Kini i/b Suresh Dubey for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 28, 2010 P.C: 1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai whereby he rejected the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs therein to restrain respondent Nos.2 to 6 from carrying out redevelopment of the property in terms of the IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) issued by respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation. 2. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties for sufficiently long time. It appears that the property was initially agreed to be developed as a slum by the very respondent Nos.2 to 6. The owner, one Pednekar, died on 2-2-2003. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 6 have obtained the IOD from the Corporation. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 now do not propose to develop the property as a slum under the slum rehabilitation scheme. It would, 3 therefore, follow that if respondent Nos.2 to 6 have to develop the property, they would either have to see that plaintiff Nos.1 to 18 are removed from the property by filing appropriate suits, either under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or before the Civil Court, if they are to be treated as trespassers and without doing that respondent Nos.2 to 6 will not be able to proceed with the redevelopment, since the developers do not have the backing of the slum redevelopment authority. Alternatively, they would have to obtain the consent of the appellants for the purpose of redevelopment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the said respondents also concedes that under one of the conditions of the IOD he has to get the premises vacated after following the due process of law or obtain the consent of the occupants. In view of this, the learned Judge could have observed that respondent Nos.2 to 6 would not be in a position to carry out redevelopment or act on the IOD, issued by respondent No.1, without first following the due process of law, till the disposal of the suit, that is filing appropriate suit before the appropriate forum for removal of appellant Nos.1 to 18 from the property, or without first obtaining their consent for the purpose of 4 redevelopment. The notice of motion taken out before the trial Court is disposed of in the above terms without prejudice to the rights of the parties to place their cases before the learned trial Judge where the suit is pending. Both the appeals stand disposed of. 3. In view of disposal of both the appeals, the civil applications taken out in the respective appeals also stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)