901-AO-897-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.897 OF 2026 Alperton Developers & Contractors Pvt Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. Vishnu Swami Lokare & Anr ...Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6875 OF 2026 ---------- Mr. Rohan Cama, A/w Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Ms Jasmine Kachala, Mr. Brian Noronha and Mr. Vikram Krishnan i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Appellant. Ms Yashi Bhatt i/b Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent-SRA. Mr. Vishnu Lokare-Respondent No.1 present in person. ----------- CORAM: AARTI A. SATHE, J. DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1, taking exception to the order dated 22nd August 2026 read with order dated 25th August 2026 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay City Civil Court in draft Notice of Motion filed in S.C. Suit No.1930 of 2026. By way of the aforesaid impugned order, the Trial Court granted ad-interim relief against the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No.1 from his premises until 25th August 2026 and the next date of hearing of the Notice of Motion is scheduled on 8th September 2026. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the said order has been passed erroneously without taking into consideration Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2026.09.01 19:22:19 +0530 901-AO-897-26.DOC the facts of the present matter, whereby the Respondent No.1, who is one of the 92 members of the Society Bhim Nagar SRA CHS Ltd., Jerbai Wadia Road, Patel, Mumbai-400012, had entered into a settlement which is recorded by the Minutes of Order, which form part of the order dated 10th July 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The challenge in that petition was to an order dated 30th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector, SRA, Mumbai, wherein the Appellant was directed execute PAAA agreement with the 92 members including Respondent No.1, who was part of the Bhimnagar CHS. The said Petition was disposed of by an order dated 10th July 2026 in light of the minutes of the order, which form part of the aforesaid order. The order alongwith the Minutes of Order are reproduced below: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5, learned Advocate for Respondents-SRA and learned Addl.G.P. for Respondent-State. 2. There is challenge to the order dared 30th June 2026 passed the Deputy Colllector (Special Cell), Slum Rehabilitation Authority Mumbai City. There is further Writ of Mandamus sought against the Respondent No.5 to execute the registered Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements ("PAA Agreements"). There is also grievance about payment of transit rent at market rates. 3. During pendency of the Petition, both the contesting parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of the payment of transit rent, handing over the possession, deciding the eligibility by the appropriate authority and Petitioner raising grievance about enhanced transit rent, if any and about the transit accommodation before the appropriate authority. In view of that, they have tendered unsigned minutes of the order on record. It is marked as Annexure-X. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the light of those minutes of the order. It is made clear that the assurance recorded in the minutes are considered as an undertaking given to the Court. Page 2 of 7 Meera Jadhav 901-AO-897-26.DOC MINUTES OF ORDER The Order dated 30th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector, SRA is modified as follows: “1. The Petitioner society along with the 92 members (who are listed in the Order dated 30th June 2026 passed by Deputy Collector, SRA) undertake to vacate their existing premises/structures within four weeks from this date, i.e., on or before 7th August 2026. In the meanwhile, the 92 members of the Petitioner society will occupy their existing premises/structures, at their own risks and consequences and Respondent No.5 and the statutory authorities shall not be held liable for any untoward consequences arising therefrom. 2. In the event the 92 members of the Petitioner society do not vacate their existing premises/structures within the aforesaid period, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall take all necessary steps to evict the members of the Petitioner society/residents from their existing premises/structures and cause their demolition, with necessary police protection. 3. Respondent No. 5 will comply with the individual agreements entered into by Omkar Realtors and Developers Private Limited (being the erstwhile developer under the Amnesty Scheme) with the eligible slum dwellers, save and except to the extent of the following: (a) the area of the rehabilitation tenement that will be constructed by Respondent No. 5 will stand increased from 225 square feet to 300 square feet carpet area; (b) the rent payable by Respondent No. 5 shall stand increased from Rs.6000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month along with increments in rent as per norms of SRA. The Petitioner society is at liberty to approach appropriate forum to agitate remedy in relation to their demand for increment of rent and/or transit accommodation in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are kept open. 4. The appropriate authorities be directed to decide the eligibility of the members of the Petitioner society who are presently declared ineligible as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of 6 months from the date hereof. 5. The Petitioner society and its members shall cooperate with SRA and Respondent No. 5 in regard to the above.” Meera Jadhav 901-AO-897-26.DOC 3. It is clear from clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Minutes of the Order that out of 92 members including Respondent No.1 had undertaken to vacate their existing premises / structures within four weeks from 10th July 2026. The aforesaid Minutes of Order have also noted that the SRA shall take all necessary steps to evict the members and residents and cause demolition with necessary police protection. It is further noted that Appellant would comply with the individual agreements entered into by Omkar Realtors and Developers Private Limited, save and except to the extent of the following: “(a) the area of the rehabilitation tenement that will be constructed by Respondent No. 5 will stand increased from 225 square feet to 300 square feet carpet area; (b) the rent payable by Respondent No. 5 shall stand increased from Rs.6000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month along with increments in rent as per norms of SRA. The Petitioner society is at liberty to approach appropriate forum to agitate remedy in relation to their demand for increment of rent and/or transit accommodation in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are kept open.” 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that out of 92 members, 91 members have already vacated the said premises and also the PAAA agreements as contemplated in minutes of order with 91 members stand confirmed. It is therefore, his submission that the Trial Court erred in not considering the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and has erroneously granted ad-interim protection to Respondent No.1, who was also in fact bound by the Minutes of Order, which form part of the order dated 10th July 2026. Meera Jadhav 901-AO-897-26.DOC 5. Respondent No.1 is represented by his Advocate, however, in the later session, Respondent No.1’s relatives have today appeared in person and the Advocate has submitted that he has no instructions to appear in the aforesaid matter. They have submitted that they have a quarrel about the transit rent amount which has been offered to them and hence are not willing to vacate the premises. It is pertinent to note that in the minutes of order, clause 3(b) has specifically stipulated that Bhim Nagar CHS Ltd., is at liberty to approach appropriate forum to agitate remedy in relation to their demand for increment of rent and/or transit accommodation in accordance with law. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Bhim Nagar CHS Ltd. has already moved AGRC, the authority under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in respect of enhancement of the transit rent and the matter has been heard and orders thereon are reserved. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the order dated 10th July 2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court was also not placed before the Trial Court prior to passing of the impugned order dated 22nd August 2026 / 25th August 2026. He, therefore, submits that the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the Respondents has been granted by the Trial Court without appreciating the facts of the case and therefore the impugned order ought to be quashed and set aside. Meera Jadhav 901-AO-897-26.DOC 7. Having heard the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that the Trial Court without having benefit of the order of this Court dated 10th July 2026 has erroneously come to the view that if Respondent No.1 would be dispossessed, irreparable loss would be caused to him. In view thereof, Trial Court proceeded to grant ad-interim injunction and restricted the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No.1 from existing premises / structure. It is informed that the entire SRA scheme is particularly in respect of the existing premises / structure of Bhim Nagar CHS of which Respondent No.1 is a part, is at much advanced stage and only on account of non vacation of Respondent No.1 from the existing premises / structure, the SRA scheme is delayed. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the Trial Court requires to be set aside as it has not considered the order of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby Respondent No.1 was bound to vacate the existing premises / structures. 8. In view thereof, this Appeal from Order is allowed in the aforesaid terms. ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 22nd August 2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Trial Court to decide the Notice of Motion on the next date of hearing, i.e., 8th September 2026, considering the findings in this order. No Meera Jadhav 901-AO-897-26.DOC adjournments to be sought by either parties at the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion. 9. Appeal from order accordingly stands disposed off. 10. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, interim application does not survive and accordingly stands disposed off. (AARTI A. SATHE, J.) Meera Jadhav