Bombay High Court
Noorjahan Shabuddin Shaikh And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 27 June, 2019
Author: R.D. Dhanuka
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
ppn 1 903.wp-1248.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1248 OF 2019
Noorjahan Shahbuddin Shaikh & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
---
Mr.Vikas Pandey i/by Mr.Vivek Pandey for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP for the respondent no.1 -State.
Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Sowmya Shrikrishna ,
Mr.Sholk Bolar and Ms.Paridhi Saraf i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for
the respondent no.3.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : 27th June 2019 P.C.:
. The matter is on board under the caption of Direction on the praecipe filed by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.3 has neither offered permanent alternate accommodation nor has offered the competent transit rent to the petitioners inspite of the statement made before this Court on 15th April 2019. The MHADA has issued a notice dated 18th June 2019 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in question.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2019 06:44:28 :::
ppn 2 903.wp-1248.18.doc
3. Mr.Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3, on instruction, states that agreement for permanent alternate accommodation would be entered into with the petitioners within two months from the date of issuance of an IOD for the subject cluster. He submits that IOD has not been issued till date. As and when IOD is issued, a suitable permanent alternate accommodation agreement would be entered into with the petitioners as stated before this Court on 15 th April 2019. Statement is accepted.
4. In so far as transit rent is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that though the petitioners would be entitled to lesser amount of transit rent, the respondent no.3 would pay transit rent @Rs.25,000/- per month in respect of shop in question. Such amount shall be deposited initially for a period of two months with the office of Prothonotary and Senior Master by 5.00 p.m. tomorrow. Statement made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 is accepted as and by of an undertaking to this Court.
5. The apprehension of the petitioners is that even after IOD is issued in favour of the respondent no.3, agreement for permanent alternate accommodation would not be executed by the respondent no.3 ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2019 06:44:28 ::: ppn 3 903.wp-1248.18.doc with the petitioners. As and when such occasion arises, the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for committing breach of the order by the respondent no.3. On the basis of this apprehension, the petitioners cannot refuse to vacate the premises in question pursuant to the notice issued by MHADA under Section 95A of the MHAD Act.
6. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not vacate the premises by 5.00 p.m. tomorrow, the MHADA would be at liberty to demolish the impugned structure without giving further notice after 5.00 p.m. tomorrow. Parties as well as the MHADA to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2019 06:44:28 :::