rejected. Division Bench of this Court (Coram: V.M. Kanade and M.S. Sonak, JJ.) in its judgment dated 28/07/2016 delivered in PIL No.43 of 2016 ( Mr. Imran Suleman Qureshi vs. Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and Ors. ) has considered all the judgments of the Apex Court and has observed that this Court should be slow in entertaining Petitions as PIL and only after it is satisfied that the tests laid down in the said judgments are followed then only it should entertain the PIL. Keeping this view in mind, we are of the view that though the Petitioner claims to have acted with bonafide intention, in reality, he has agitated rights of the tenants. In our view, it was always open for the tenants to approach this Court challenging the action of Respondent No.1 and there was no impediment in their way either social or financial to challenge the action of the State in granting permission to Respondent No.1 for reconstruction of the said building above the four rooms which were given to the Municipal Corporation. The photographs which have been shown to us by Respondent No.1 shows that four rooms have been given to Municipal Corporation on ownership basis and the garden and the four rooms are well maintained. We are therefore not inclined to grant the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner.
