Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel.

2. The First Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land being C.S. No.952 of Bhuleshwar Division, situated at 583, Jagannath Shankershett Road, Mumbai-400 002. A building consisting of a ground floor and five floors was situated on the land, having been constructed prior to 1940. The building was a Cessed `A' category building in the island city. The building was in a dilapidated condition and according to the Petitioners, had partially collapsed. On 11 April 2001, an application for redevelopment and for obtaining the No Objection Certificate of the First Respondent was submitted under Development Control Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (`DCR'). On 14 August 2001, the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (`the Repair Board') the Second Respondent, granted its no objection for the redevelopment of the property under DCR 33(7). The no objection certificate stipulated that residential occupants of the old building would be entitled to an equivalent carpet area subject to a minimum of 225 sq.ft. and a maximum of 753 sq.ft.. Non-residential occupants were required to be furnished with alternative accommodation equivalent to the area occupied in the old building. The no objection certificate provided that if it was subsequently found that the documents/information submitted with the application for a no objection certificate are found to be incorrect or forged, the permission would be cancelled and the Petitioners would be held responsible for all the consequences.

3. On 17 August 2002, the Executive Engineer of the Repair Board issued a duly certified list of tenants of the old building on the basis of the no objection certificate issued by the Repair Board. The Petitioners applied to the Municipal Corporation for sanctioning the plans. On 20 December 2002, the Municipal Corporation addressed a letter through its Executive Engineer (Building Proposals, City-III) to the Chief Officer of the Repair Board. The letter stated that the final list of certified tenants issued by the Repair Board on 14 August 2002 stated that the existing tenants on the First, Second and Fourth Floors were non-residential and that the carpet area in their occupation was in excess of 70 sq.mtrs.. This was with particular reference to tenements 5 and 6 on the First Floor, tenements 7 and 8 on the Second Floor and tenement 11 on the Fourth Floor. The Municipal Corporation stated that the inspection extract for 1994-95 from the Assessor and the Collector shows that these tenements on the First, Second and Fourth floors were residential. According to the Corporation, no proposal for change of use from residential to commercial have been received. The Chief Officer of the Repair Board was called upon to offer his remarks in regard to the nonresidential use since that would have a bearing on the permissible F.S.I.. In response, by a letter dated 30 December 2002, the Chief Officer of the Repair Board stated that the certification of tenements 5 and 6 on the First Floor, tenements 7 and 8 on the Second Floor and tenement 11 on the Fourth Floor was based on the documentary evidence submitted by the Developer.

4. The Municipal Corporation issued an I.O.D. on 15 March 2004 and plans were sanctioned for the construction of a building consisting of a ground floor and fifteen upper floors. A commencement certificate was issued on 14 June 2004. The old building was demolished in October 2004 and construction commenced. The no objection certificate which was issued by the Repair Board was thereafter extended from time to time. By 2008, the Petitioners had proceeded with the work of redevelopment and constructed eleven floors.

5. On 10 November 2008, a letter was addressed by the Chief E