The Appellant/plaintiff has challenged the order whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai on 28.10.2013 refused to grant adinterim relief. The main prayer in the Notice of motion is to reconnect the water supply and not to disconnect the electricity supply.

2. No reply filed by the Respondent/Defendants. The issue with regard to their right of alternate accommodation is not yet settled. The Developer, though made party and served privately, not appearing and coming forward to execute the agreement. The dispute is between the executive member of the society and the Plaintiff and other such members whose litigation are also pending one in City Civil Court and the other in Cooperative Court for the same building and for the same action. Other tenants vacated, therefore, their portion was demolished. The basis for action is the report which says that even if the building is repaired, the life won't be more than 10 years, therefore, it is not feasible. This itself means the right of Appellant/plaintiff just cannot be overlooked before demolishing the whole building in such fashion at the instance of the developer and/or even society one who is not coming forward to provide alternate accommodation. Notice under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), which admittedly not issued to the individual occupant/flat owner of the property. The individual notice basically when it is for demolition of flat/structure is required to be given as in case of such dispute between the members, the concerned member like the Appellant would not be in a position to contest and/or insist for execution of agreement for alternate accommodation if majority of the members want to develop the society.

3. All these issues require consideration. The disconnection of water supply of the building, in such fashion, in my view, is not contemplated action under Section 354 of MMC Act and/or any circular even if issued by the Corporation.

4. The person/occupant/owner of the flt are entitled for electricity and/or water supply subject to the other provisions of the Act. If necessary charges are paid and/or the Applicants are paying regularly, there is no question of disconnection of water supply and/or electricity in such fashion. Section 354, in my view, in no way provide and/or permit the Corporation to disconnect such essential amenities in such fashion in advance. To hasten up of evacuation process, in no way, read to mean that the Corporation can disconnect the electricity and/or water supply without even proceeding further to take action of eviction and/or demolition of whole building. The Corporation is required to consider the pendency of litigation as well as the rights of the flat owners who are entitled for alternate accommodation at least so that they can vacate the flat in question. The developer is not in a position and/or not providing them alternate accommodation and the building, according to the Plaintiff, is repairable and even as per the report, the life of building would be extended for 10 years, merely because other tenants/flat owners have vacated, without deciding and/or crystallizing the right of Appellant/plaintiff in no way sufficient reason at least for Corporation to disconnect water supply in such fashion. Even the private landlord and/or owner would not be in a position to disconnect the essential amenities. The Respondent/Corporation being a local body, who are under obligation to provide essential amenities, subject to provisions of law, and their payment, in no way, is empowered to disconnect water supply in such fashion. It is impermissible.

5. This, in no way, means they cannot disconnect water supply, but that should be on a day and/or on the date before evicting the occupant and/or before demolition the building. The occupants/flat owners are entitled to use and utilise the premises until they are evicted in due course of law.

6. In view of above, at this stage, I am inclined to hold that t