Spark Developers v. Savitribai Dattaram Mayekar And 6 ORS

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRITTEN PETITION (L) NO.513 OF 2018 M/s. Spark Developers ...

Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Savitribai Dattaram Mayekar since deceased through her heirs and L Rs Smt. Pranita Prakash Surve And Others ...

Respondents .....

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Himanshu Kode I/b Samir Suryawanshi for the Petitioner.

Mr. Madhur Surana for Respondent No.1.

Uma Pasludesai, AGP for Respondent No.6 State. Pooja Yadav for Respondent No.7 MCGM ....

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2018 P.C. :

.

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order dated 15 December 2017, passed by Respondent No.4, Additional Collector (E.R.) Appellate Authority, Mumbai City. The impugned order holds Respondent No.1, who is the legal representative of the deceased original Respondent No.1, as an eligible hutment dweller. The petition also seeks compliance with the order dated 2 November 2017, passed by a Division Bench of this Court. This order requires Respondent No.1 to vacate the premises within seven days in case she is held eligible for an allotment of alternative premises. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 presently occupies 5 ft. x 10 ft. structure, which is a lone structure standing in the way of completion of

2/3 the subject slum rehabilitation project. Learned Counsel submits that now that Respondent No.1 is declared to be eligible for allotment of alternative premises, she cannot hold on to the current premises, which is merely a transit accommodation. Learned Counsel submits that in accordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, Respondent No.1 will have to now vacate the premises. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 that since his client is declared to be eligible for allotment of alternative accommodation, she cannot be asked to vacate the transit accommodation occupied by her without being offered a permanent alternative accommodation in accordance with the scheme or rent in lieu thereof.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner thereupon submits that his client is agreeable to upfront pay such amount as may be commensurate with the accommodation held by Respondent No.1 and rent paid to other occupants of the scheme, towards rent for a period of four months. To that end, he offers an upfront payment of Rs.60,000/-, which is accepted by Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that subject to his client being allotted an alternative accommodation commensurate with her eligibility, she is agreeable to vacate the current premises occupied by her against payment of Rs.60,000/- offered by the Petitioner.

In the premises, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the following order :- (i) The Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousands Only) to Respondent No.1 within a period of one week from today; (ii) Against payment of Rs.60,000/-, Respondent No.1 shall forthwith

3/3 vacate the premises occupied by her currently; (iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3, representing Slum Rehabilitation Authority, shall allot an alternative accommodation from out of PAP tenements to Respondent No.1 in accordance with clause-3 of the circular dated 2 November 2015. Such allotment shall be made as per her eligibility and within a period of three months from today.

The petition is disposed of.

(S.C. GUPTE, J.)