Nathulal Kapoorchand Jain v. Executive Engineer And 3 ORS

WPL. 1697-15 VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1697 OF 2015 Nathulal Kapoorchand Jain ...

Petitioner Vs.

Executive Engineer, MBR & R Board & Ors.

...

Respondents *** Mr. Nitesh Acharye a/w Altaf Khan i/b Anjali Awasthi, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P. V. Lad, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Ms. Yasmin Tavaria i/b Legal Links, for Respondent No. 4. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 16, 2015 PC.

1.

By an earlier order dated 4th March, 2015 passed by this Court, the Petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the premises. However, the Petitioner has declined to inform his acceptance to the proposal given by the Developer. Consequently, the MHADA passed an order under Section 95-A of the M.H.A.D. Act, 1976 and the Petitioner was asked to vacate the premises. The Petitioner, therefore, has filed this petition again and has now contended that Petitioner was willing to accept the rent of Rs. 40,000/- per month. This is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Developer (Respondent No. 4). 2.

Now, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The 1 / 2

WPL. 1697-15 Developer has issued an account payee cheque drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Crawford Market, Mumbai branch, in favour for Rs. 4,40,000/- being 11 months rent / compensation, at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The cheque is handed over to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and it is accepted. Petitioner has also given an undertaking in his affidavit that he shall hand over the premises within one week from today. In our view, considerable time has elapsed and therefore, we direct the Petitioner to hand over possession till 21st June, 2015 and if possession is not handed over by 21st June, 2015 at 5.00 p.m., MHADA shall execute the order issued under Section 95-A of the M.H.A.D. Act, 1976.

3.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that there is one problem that his prayer for alternate accommodation is not considered. In our view, we can't go into the said question at this stage of the petition. Writ petition is accordingly disposed in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- Sd/- [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 2 / 2