ORDER :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

This Appeal is directed against a common order dated 27th January, 2023, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in Notice of Motion Nos. 2067 of 2017, 2366 of 2017 and 1097 of 2018, whereby the Notices of Motion Nos. 2067 of 2017 and 2366 of 2017 taken out by the appellant-plaintiff came to be dismissed and the Notice of Motion No. 1097 of 2018 taken out by the respondent-defendant No. 2 came to be partly allowed thereby directing the respondents-defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 to hand over possession of permanent alternate accommodation i.e. Flat No. 2074 in Building No. 2, to defendant No. 2 with further direction to the defendant No. 2 not to part with the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation and create any third party interest therein, till disposal of the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed before the City Civil Court.

3. Background facts can be stated in brief as under:-

(a) In the year, 1983, the premises bearing Room No. 2005 in Building No. 108, Poisar Pancholi Housing Soc. Ltd, the defendant No. 5 was allotted to the plaintiff by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board ("suit premises").

(b) After marriage of Ravindra, the plaintiff's brother, the plaintiff permitted Ravindra and defendant No. 2, his wife, to occupy the suit premises. The proprietary title in the suit premises, however, continued to vest in the plaintiff. Ravindra, plaintiff's brother and husband of defendant No. 2, passed away on 8th November, 2011. Defendant No. 5-Society went for redevelopment.

(c) Plaintiff asserts, defendant No. 2 surreptitiously got executed an agreement for transit/permanent alternate accommodation with defendant No. 1- the Developer. Upon the persuasion by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 executed another agreement for permanent alternate accommodation with the plaintiff.

4. As the defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 threatened to deliver the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation to defendant, instead of the plaintiff, he was constrained to institute a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 2 has no right, title and interest in the suit premises and that agreement dated 28th January, 2013, executed by and between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the suit premises was illegal, void and did not bind the plaintiff and also for an order to the defendant No. 1 to provide the permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of the suit premises, to the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement dated 20th April, 2013 and restrain the defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 from handing over the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation to defendant No. 2.

5. In the said suit, the plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No. 2067 of 2017 against defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Notice of Motion No. 2366 of 2017 against defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6, to temporarily restrain the defendant No. 1 and 3 to 6 from delivering possession of the permanent alternate accommodation to defendant No. 2 and interim mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 to hand over the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation to the plaintiff.

6. The defendant No. 2, in turn, took out the Notice of Motion No. 1097 of 2018, seeking direction to defendant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 to hand over the possession of the permanent alternate accommodation to defendant No. 2.

7. By the impugned order, after appraisal of the pleadings and material pressed into service and the submissions canvassed on behalf of the parties, the learned Judge, City Civil Court was persuaded to dis