M K BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid four appeals arise out of common facts and give rise to same arguments and therefore, have been heard together for the purposes of motion hearing.

(2.) ALL the four appeals have been filed by the original Plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court dismissing their Notice of Motion pending suit. Original Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to get the alternate accommodation as assured by the Respondents herein (orig.Defendants) and as referred in the order dated 13.3.87, Exhibit H annexed to the plaint and the government policy decision contained in the resolution dated 6 Kartik 1907. The original Plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction against the original Defendants praying therein that they be restrained from evicting the Plaintiffs or disturbing their peaceful use and occupation and enjoyment of the plot and land and structure in their possession without complying with the assurances recorded in the order passed on 13.3.87 and by providing alternate accommodation to them.

(3.) MR .Mehta, learned counsel for original plaintiff-Appellants streneously urged that trial court did not apply its mind at all on various contentions argued by the counsel for original Plaintiffs and which were also reiterated in the written arguments. Mr.Mehta urged that the original Plaintiffs are entitled to the alternative accommodation and protected under the cabinet policy and at this stage the trial court was not justified in discarding the claim raised by the original Plaintiffs for alternative accommodation. The learned counsel for original Plaintiffs-Appellants would also urge that in the cabinet policy no distinction is drawn between hutment dwellers occupying huts for residential purposes and the occupants who were using the huts for nor residential purposes and business purposes. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the original Plaintiffs-Appellants that the Respondents are estopped by principle of promisary estoppel in evicting the original Plaintiffs from disputed site without providing alternative accommodation since the order passed by this Court on 13.3.87 was construed by all concerned in the manner that all persons who were occupying the huts either for residential purposes or for non-residential purposes would be provided with alternative site.