LATA SUNIL JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally by consent.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiffs have challenged order dated 29th October, 2013, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, whereby rejected the Notice of Motion. The prayers are sought to permit them to occupy the permanent alternate accommodation and/or such other similarly placed premises as per Annexure II published by defendant No.3 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (The Corporation), in view of the signed agreement by defendant No.4.

(3.) The buildings/ premises were in a dilapidated condition. As per provisions of Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (The D.C.R. Rules), it was taken for development by entering their names in list Annexure II, being the occupier at the relevant time. Respondent Nos 3 & 4 even permitted to execute a separate agreement for entitlement of alternate permanent accommodation on completion of new premises.