7 At the hearing of the Petitions, Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, makes additional legal submissions, which do not form part of the grounds urged in the Petition. He submits that Section 95A, considering the scheme of the Act and particularly Sections 88 to 95 preceding it, contemplates the it is to be invoked in cases where the board constituted under the Act either undertakes structural repairs of buildings which are in ruinous condition and likely to deteriorate and fall, or where repairs or reconstructions of buildings are necessary in respect of the buildings which suddenly collapse or become inhabitable or where acquisitions are required under Section 93 of the Act. It is submitted that Section 95A has no application to a cluster redevelopment scheme coming within DCR 33(9). Similarly, it is submitted, for summary eviction of occupiers under Section 95A, a no objection certificate for reconstruction of the building issued by the Board under the Act is a prerequisite and the LoI issued by the empowered committee does not amount to such no objection certificate. I am afraid, the submission has no merit. The subject is already concluded by a Division Bench judgement of this Court in case of Rashida Shabir Tinwala Vs. Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board1 . That judgement was in respect of the same Urban Renewal Scheme, with which we are concerned in the present Petitions. The argument before the Division Bench was that the conditions of Section 95A, namely, that the owner of the building or the proposed co-operative
