H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---This writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a tenant of a building which became dilapidated and was therefore demolished and reconstructed, but the tenant has not been provided with an accommodation in the reconstructed building, although the reconstruction was under a statutory scheme to rehouse and protect the tenants of the dilapidated buildings. The petition seeks implementation of the agreement executed by the landlord of the building with the petitioner-tenant under the statutory scheme and also the implementation of a supplemental agreement in that behalf between the two. In this process, the petition raises important questions of law and with respect to the implementation of such welfare schemes and their likely misuse, and also with respect to the actions and inactions by public officers in-charge of such statutory schemes.

2. Respondent No. 1 to the petition is Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (shortly known as "MHADA"), which is a statutory Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 ("MHAD Act" for short). Respondent No. 2 is the Regional Housing and Area Development Board for the Mumbai area, constituted under the MHAD Act and respondent No. 3 is the Building, Repair and Reconstruction Board for the Mumbai area also constituted under the same MHAD Act. Out of these three public bodies, we are more concerned with respondent No. 3 in the present matter. Respondent No. 4 is the Municipal Corporation of Brihan-Mumbai. Respondent No. 5 is the landlord of the building and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the persons in whose favour an interest has been allegedly created by respondent No. 5 in the same flat in the reconstructed building, to which the petitioner is having a claim. Ms. Usha Purohit has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. D'Mello appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Savla appeared for respondent No. 4. Mr. Doctor and Ms. Sidhwa appeared for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Abhyankar for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

3. Frame of the petition :

The petitioner herein was a tenant of room No. 1 on the 3rd floor of a building known as "Bhandare Building" (sometimes also referred to as "Bhandari Building") situated at Survey No. 1058, 7 Khetwadi, 9th Lane, Girgaon, Mumbai. The building consisted of Ground plus 3 floors with an attic on the 4th floor. It was constructed long ago and by 1978 it became dilapidated and dangerous for occupation. It became necessary to demolish and reconstruct the same and hence a notice to vacate the tenements was issued to the tenants (including the petitioner) by respondent No. 2 under section 77(b) of the MHAD Act, first on 25th July, 1978 and then on 13th of July, 1979. The said building was subsequently demolished in 1979 and the tenants including the petitioner were provided with temporary accommodation in the transit camps.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that under the provisions of the MHAD Act, it is open to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 either to acquire such property (under sections 92 and 93 of the MHAD Act) and to reconstruct the building, or to hand over the work of reconstruction to the Municipal Corporation or to a Co-operative Society or "to any other agency" recognised by the Board under section 79(2)(a) of the MHAD Act. In the present case, the work was entrusted to respondent No. 5 who is the landlord of the building and the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for that work was issued under section 91(5) of the MHAD Act on 1st October, 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that she had the right to get the permanent alternative accommodation in the reconstructed building under section 94(5) of the MHAD Act as it originally stood or even as amended by Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1998. She submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 5 as their agent were duty bound to provide such accommodation to her.

5. It is pointed out by the petitioner that respondent N