Arun Gangaram Sawant vs Executive Engineer And 4 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6258 Bom

ssm                                                                        1        924-934wp1641.17gp.sxw

               IN THE  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1641 OF 2017

Rajan Dattaram Kambli & Ors.                                                            ....Petitioners.
           Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.                                              ....Respondents.

                                           WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2017

Chandrakant Dhaku Daralkar & Ors.                                                       ....Petitioners.
           Vs.
Executive Engineer & Ors.                                                               ....Respondents.

                                    WITH
                   WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2245 OF 2017

Kantikumar Raoji Gaonkar & Ors.                                                         ....Petitioners.
           Vs.
Executive Engineer & Ors.                                                               ....Respondents. 

Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Y.E. Mooma, Ms. Manisha B. 
Gawde for the Petitioners in all the matters.
Mr. Nimay Dave a/w Mr. Rushabh Sheth, Ms. Neha Shah i/by M/s. 
Bodhanwalla & Co. for Respondent No.10 in WP No. 1641 of 2017 
and   for   Respondent   No.   5   in   WP   No.   1617   of   2017   and   in   WPL 
2245/2017.
Ms. K.H. Mastakar for MCGM in all matters. 

                                 CORAM  :  ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
                                              SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

DATE : 16 AUGUST 2017.

ORDER:-

The fact is that there are about 130 tenants, out of which,

ssm 2 924-934wp1641.17gp.sxw

the statement is made that more than 100 tenants have already been

vacated and entered into the agreement also and they are getting

regular rents and/or alternate accommodations, as agreed.

2 The Petitioners in these Petitions are the other remaining

occupants/tenants. As they failed to vacate the premises, the MHADA

has invoked Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area

Development Act-1976 ("MHADA Act") and therefore, these Petitions

for interim protection.

3 The submission is made that the whole scheme is bad. At

this stage, in view of above, we are inclined to keep all these matters

on 29 August 2017. The Respondents to file short affidavit putting on

all the details, so that these matters can be disposed of on the next

date.

4 Stand over to 29 August 2017. All these matters be kept

on supplementary board.

(BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)