923-WP-10256-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2026 Arunashree W/o. Dr. Raju Dusa .....Petitioner Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. .....Respondents ..... Mr. R. A. Yadav, for the Petitioner. Mr. Prakhar Tandon i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for the Respondent No.1-SRA. Mr. Santosh Parad, for the Respondent No.2-BMC. Mr. Devansh Shah a/w Mr. Santosh Pathak and Mr. Vimish Lotlikar i/b Law Origin, for the Respondent No.4. ..… CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST 2026 ORDER (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) :- 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction to the Respondents to allot permanent alternate accommodation to the Petitioner on the ground floor in lieu of the premises i.e. Structure No.92A, (J-1), Om Dattaji Nagar, CTS No.109(pt), 110(pt), 2/136(pt), Dhobi Ghat, D. S. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. (“the said structure” for short) The Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner was carrying out her profession in the dispensary (Clinic) since 9th May, 1994 in the said structure mentioned above. The said structure Manisha 1/5 MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Digitally signed by MANISHA BALKRISHNA TALEKAR Date: 2026.08.25 18:43:45 +0530 923-WP-10256-2026.doc was declared as slum and the redevelopment under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slum Act” for short) commenced. The name of the Petitioner was shown as eligible in Annexure II. The Developer entered into an agreement on 14th October, 2009 for permanent alternate accommodation initially for residential premises and thereafter, there was a fresh agreement executed on 30th March, 2012 with the Respondent Nos.3 and 6 for permanent alternate accommodation of commercial premises admeasuring at about 225 sq. ft. It is the case of the Petitioner that, on 15th April, 2026, the Petitioner was issued Allotment letter along with the keys in respect of Shop No.227. The Petitioner accepted the same, however, after accepting the same it was found that the structure is on the 2nd floor. The Petitioner therefore returned the keys and denied the said accommodation. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was carrying out her profession on the ground floor even prior to declaration of the property as slum and therefore, she will not be able to carry the profession on the second floor. She requested to allot structure to her on the ground floor. Manisha 2/5 923-WP-10256-2026.doc 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 filed an affidavit-in- reply and opposed the contention. It was stated that, earlier one M/s. Omega Shelters was appointed for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Thereafter, M/s. Omega Shelters were removed under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act vide Order dated 15th March, 2024. The Respondent No.4 was appointed to carry out the development. It is the contention of the Respondent No.4 that, the Petition is not maintainable. The Respondent No.4 contends that, in the agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (for short “PAA Agreement”) there was no condition mentioned that the allotment would be only on the ground floor. It is contended that, there are no vacant premises available on the ground floor. It is further contended that the Petitioner had accepted the premises on the second floor however, after few days she returned keys back to the office. He sought dismissal of the said proceedings. 3. The Petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit. 4. We have gone through the documents on record. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The ‘PAA Manisha 3/5 923-WP-10256-2026.doc Agreement’ at page no.41 shows that the Petitioner would be entitled to a commercial premises admeasuring about 225 sq. ft. The said agreement is signed by the Petitioner and the erstwhile developers. This agreement does not mention that the Petitioner would be entitled to any structure on the ground floor. The Petitioner being an educated person could definitely have objected at the time of entering into the ‘PAA Agreement’. However, she had accepted the said agreement without any demurrer. 5. The possession letter dated 15th April, 2026 which is signed by the Petitioner also mentions that, Shop No.227 was allotted on the second floor. This possession letter was accepted by the Petitioner and only after a week, the Petitioner has refused to accept the said Shop No.227 on the ground that the same is on the second floor. The reliance of the Petitioner on the letter dated 19th June, 2018 issued by the erstwhile Developer to buttress her claim that she is entitled to the shop on the ground floor cannot take the case of the Petitioner any further. The said letter is not addressed to the Respondent No.4. The said Developer was removed under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act by the competent Authority. The said letter was issued in the year Manisha 4/5 923-WP-10256-2026.doc 2018 however, till 2024 the erstwhile Developer did not do anything and that, now, this letter cannot be relied on behalf of the Petitioner to contend that the Petitioner is entitled to be rehabilitated on the ground floor only. Admittedly, the Petitioner is being allotted a Gala/ Shop in the commercial building on the second floor. The Petitioner is not disputing the allotment on the ground that some lesser area is allotted to her. The dispute only lies regarding the floor on which the allotment should be made. The Petitioner does not have right to be allotted a premises at a particular place or on a particular floor. We do not find any infirmity in the action taken by the Respondent No.4. We do not find any merits in the case of the Petitioner that she is entitled to a Gala on the ground floor only. 6. In view of above, the Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Hence, Writ Petition No.10256 of 2026 stands dismissed. (SANDESH D.PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Manisha 5/5