Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 It is case of the plaintiffs that two buildings "A" and "B"

Wings of ground plus seven storeys for rehabilitation were constructed, but occupation certificate was not obtained by defendant no.3. Under these circumstances, tenants and occupants of Afzal chawl had forcibly taken possession of different rooms of their choice without following the procedure of lottery as agreed. Defendant no.3 paid compensation towards rent for transit accommodation till 31.3.2009. Thus, according to plaintiffs, after entire development, plaintiffs were entitled to minimum area of 27.88 sq.mts. (300 sq.feet carpet) in the newly constructed building as permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of their old premises under Rule 4 of Appendix IIIA. According to plaintiffs, it was obligatory upon sanctioning authority to consider prevailing law so as to direct defendant no.3 to construct rehabilitation components of required dimensions. But there was breach of statutory obligation on the part of MCGM, and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration that they are entitled for all the benefits of FA-302-2013-FA-303-2013 redevelopment under Development Control Regulation 33(7) read along with Appendix III of Development Control Regulation. The plaintiffs also prayed for declaration that agreement dated 27.9.2006 is valid and subsisting and binding upon defendant no.3 and that plaintiffs were entitled for accommodation in the newly constructed building in lieu of the old premises in their possession. They also prayed for injunction against defendant no.3, not to create third party interest in respect of the premises to which plaintiffs are entitled. The plaintiffs in paragraph 25 averred that notice under Section 173 of MHADA Act is not required to be given on the ground that plaintiffs are seeking enforcement of statutory obligation against defendant no.1. It is also averred that statutory notice as contemplated under Section 527 of MMC Act is not required to be given as the defendant no.2 is sued in dual capacity as local body and Planning Authority which has not discharged its duty as local authority under MMC Act. Thus, according to plaintiff notice is deemed to have been waived. Further, according to plaintiffs, statutory notice contemplated under Section 164 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is also not required to be given.

e-1) it be declared that the defendant no.4 has forcibly and illegally taken the possession of permanent alternate accommodation being Flat No. 206 situated on the 2nd floor of C-Wing, Afzal Co-

operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008;

e-2) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass mandatory order and direction interalia directing the defendant no.4 to quit, vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the Flat No.206 situated on the 2nd floor of C-Wing, Afzal Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 to the plaintiffs;

f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the defendants their servants, agents and persons claiming through or under them be FA-302-2013-FA-303-2013 restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from parting with possession of and/or creating any third party interest in respect of the permanent alternate accommodation to which the plaintiffs are entitle in lieu of old premises viz. Room No.16, C-Block, Afzal chawl, Opp. Maratha Mandir, Dr.Anandrao Nail Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai -

FA-302-2013-FA-303-2013

h) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the defendants be directed to pay the compensation for temporary alternate accommodation for the period of April, 2009 till the handing over the permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of old premises viz. Room No. 16, C-Block, Afzal chawl, Opp. Maratha Mandir, Dr.Anandrao Naik Marg, Mumbai Central, Mumbai -