1. Can a Landlord who has accepted the status of the Plaintiff as a tenant turn back and say that the Plaintiff is not the tenant? Can a Landlord who has made a statement before the Court that he has given undertaking to the BMC that the Defendant Landlord will allot the Plaintiff portion of equivalent area at the same place and location of the repaired/reconstructed building thereafter turn back and say that the tenant has no right to claim any tenancy in respect of the building which is constructed after demolition of the old structure? These are the principal questions which have to be answered in this Civil Revision Application.

2. By an order dated 31/3/2010, the learned Single Judge (J. H. Bhatia, J) had directed that the Petition will be finally disposed of. Subsequently by order dated 27/6/2011 rule was issued and liberty was granted to apply for a fixed date of hearing. Accordingly, the Petition has been heard by me. Respondent No. 1(c) Ashok Narang has died but his heirs are already on record as Respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b).

BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS

3. It is necessary to give a brief resume of facts. The Petitioner was the tenant of residential premises situated at 6th Floor on the rear side of the building known as ‘Gorden House’ situated at 5, Battery Street, Colaba, Mumbai for an approximate carpet area of 364.36 sq. feet. One Manu Narang (Predecessor in title of the Respondents) purchased the said building and thus became landlord. In the month of May, 1989 a portion of the said building collapsed. As a result of which the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board which is a constituent Board of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) established under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 took steps under Chapter 8 of the MHAD Act, 1976. The Petitioner was granted temporary transit accommodation in a transit camp at Borivali in the month of November, 1989. The Petitioner was thus an occupant in respect of the said building “Gorden House”.

4. On 3rd September, 1999, the Petitioner filed R.A.D. Suit No. 1412 of 1999 in the Court of Small Causes against Manu Narang for the following reliefs:

“(a) For a declaration that the Plaintiff is the tenant of the Defendant in respect of the premises in the repaired/ reconstructed building known as “Gordon House”, or by any other name situate at 5, Battery Street, Colaba, Mumbai 400 039 and for an order and direction to the Defendant to allot the Plaintiff and put him in occupation and possession of a suitable and adequate premises in the said building;

(b) for interim andad-interim reliefs;

(c) for other and further reliefs as the nature of the case may warrant;

(d) for the cost of this suit.”

Subsequently by an amendment prayer (a)(i) was added to the plaint which reads thus:

“(a)(i) That the Defendants be decreed and ordered to put back the Plaintiff in possession of the newly constructed premises in lieu of his old tenanted premises admeasuring 650 sq. ft. or equivalent thereto viz. 6th floor, rear side (front side 3rd floor), building known as Gordon House, or by any other name situate at 5, Battery Street, Colaba, Mumbai 400 039.”

5. Briefly stated it was the case of the Petitioner that he was monthly tenant of the premises on the 6th floor, rear side and that the Defendant was landlord. That on 11th May, 1989 a portion of the building collapsed whereby the Petitioner was dishoused and he was allotted temporary accommodation at Borivali in the transit camp. That the tenants of the building came together and made efforts for redevelopment of the building, but for want of funds they were unable to do so. That the Plaintiff was the only dishoused person. That it was the obligation of the Defendant to provide alternate accommodation once MHADA had granted NOC for redevelopment. That MHADA had issued notice of ejectment from the transit camp on 7/1/1998. That the Defendant got the new building plans sanctioned on 13/2/1997. That