The court emphasized the justification for eviction proceedings under section 105-B of the MCGM Act, the reasonableness of the developer's offers, and the balance of convenience in reaching its decision.

V.A. Mohta, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel heard finally. The petitioners have filed a suit in the year 2010 and challenged the redevelopment scheme at municipal property in question as illegal, bad in law. A prayer is also made for providing a permanent alternate accommodation and a transit accommodation with the amenities. The suit was filed by petitioner No. 1 only. Other petitioners have not filed such suit. Ad interim relief is also sought against the developer, from demolishing and/or dispossessing the plaintiff from his respective room. A statement is made that no interim relief as prayed by the petitioners was granted and the Motion in fact was dismissed on 29th September 2014.

2. The petitioners who are occupants of the Corporation building in question have filed the present petition on 28th August 2014. Inspite of notice, the petitioners have refused to vacate the premises, the proceedings under section 105-B of the MCGM Act are invoked, which is the power to evict person from Corporation premises. The eviction proceedings are pending before the concerned enquiry officer E ward Mumbai. In the petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the same and also prayed for stay of the eviction proceedings so initiated.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed its reply dated 30th September 2014 and resisted the claim on all the grounds apart from the conduct of the petitioners whose intention as stated is nothing but to halt the project by all possible means.

4. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has also pointed out the relevant provisions and the documents to justify the case of taking action in view of above position on record. Out of 28 tenants/occupants, 22 tenants/occupants have already vacated and entered into specific agreement with the developer. We are not going to accept the case of the petitioners that only 16 occupants/tenants have vacated. Those occupants are not before us. We are inclined to accept the statement made by learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation as well as the developer. In any way that itself is a factor which goes against the petitioners/occupants who are opposing/halting this development. A statement is made by the developer that they are providing Rs. 15,000/- per month to each occupants as rent for enabling them to acquire temporary alternate accommodation. Payments to all 16 tenants/occupants and later on six more have been made for 12 months in advance to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000/- to each tenant/occupant at the time of handing over vacant possession of their respective premises. They have also agreed to provide to the occupants permanent alternate accommodation of an area admeasuring 360 sq. ft. (carpet area approximately) subject to verification and approval of plans by the MCGM which is inclusive of fungible FSI. A statement is also made that they have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as corpus fund to every member.

5. A statement is also made that they have already offered the same thing to the petitioners but for one reason or another they are not just accepting the same and delaying the project. This, in our view, is a sufficient reason to dismiss the present petition as the action so initiated by the respondent based upon the documents so referred above is an authoritative action which the respondent Corporation is under an obligation to invoke. Such occupants cannot be permitted to retain the premises and so also the development when majority of the occupants have already vacated and the developer has already invested huge amount for the development of the property in question. One cannot overlook the fact that such occupants, but for the settlement/agreement, cannot claim permanent alternate accommodation being tenants/occupants of the respondent Corporation. To exploit the plot in question commercially, offer is made which is in the interest of all the concerned. Th