4The aforesaid observations are in respect of
the same building which is the subject matter of
this petition. The learned Single Judge proceeded to
appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as
the Receiver to carry out the redevelopment of the
property. The order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged by way of Appeal (L) No.234 of 2016 by
Judgment and Order dated 11th August 2017, the
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Appeal.
In fact, after dismissal of the Appeal, a prayer was
made by the appellant for continuation of ad-interim
relief. That prayer was rejected by the Division
Bench by accepting the submission that the building
has become dilapidated and it will be hazardous and
dangerous for the occupants, if the building is not
demolished at the earliest. A Special Leave
Petition preferred before the Apex Court for
challenging the order of the Appeal Bench has been
dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 1st
September 2017. Thus, there is a confirmation of
prima facie findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge. Moreover, the averments made in the petition
show that the petitioners were aware of the notice
dated 3rd June 2009 issued by the Municipal
Corporation under section 354 of the said Act as
well as subsequent notice dated 15th June 2013
issued by the Municipal Corporation on the basis of
the notice dated 3rd June 2009. Though the said
notice dated 15th June 2013 was challenged in the
Civil Court, there is no prohibitory order passed by
the Civil Court. There is no dispute that one of the
petitioners is a plaintiff in the said suit.
