accommodation at a location desired by him, he cannot obstruct delivery
of possession of his existing accommodation under an order passed
under Sections 33/38 of the Act or oppose demolition of the existing
structure, which is crucial to implementation of the subject SR project.
No fault can be found, accordingly, with the order of AGRC. In fact, the
impugned order of AGRC does not even indicate that the aspect of
location of the permanent alternative accommodation to be provided to
the Petitioner was even debated before AGRC. The contentions of the
parties before AGRC proceeded merely on the aspect of interim transit
rent. So far as that is concerned, AGRC has rightly directed Assistant
Registrar, Co-operative Society/SRA to hear the parties and decide the
quantum of rent payable. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order of AGRC and the petition deserves to be dismissed. It
is, however, pointed out to the Court that by a recent order passed by
Assistant Registrar (order dated 1 February 2020), which order has not
even been communicated so far to the Petitioner, but has come to his
knowledge through a communication addressed by Respondent No.5
developer to him, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, SRA has
already fixed the quantum of rent without even hearing the Petitioner.
This position, though, is contested by Respondent No.5 developer.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5 developer submits that his client
has merely forwarded a cheque to the Petitioner on the basis of what
was offered to the others. The quantum of rent offered is disputed by
the Petitioner. It is submitted that whilst Rs.30,000/- rent is being
offered per month as transit rent to the others, he is merely being
offered Rs.12,000/-. It is to be decided by the Assistant Registrar after
hearing both parties. The Assistant Registrar has passed an order
