JUDGMENT - MANOHAR SUJATA V., J.: - The petitioners were originally tenants in a building know as “Siddiqui Chawl No.7”, situate at Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar, Bombay 400 028. The chawl building was in a dilapidated condition and required repairs. The building was not capable of being repaired within the costs prescribed under section 33 of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 which was then in force. Notices under section 22(1)(b) of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 were served upon the occupiers some time in September 1976. They vacated the building and went to stay in a transit camp where they were given temporary accommodation by the Board constituted under the Act. After the building was vacate in September 1976 the building was ultimately pulled down under the directions of the authority under the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act of 1969. 2. On the coming into force of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 stood repealed. Thereafter the first respondent, that is to say, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, constituted under the said Act, prepared plans for the re-construction of the demolished building. The plot of land on which the demolished chawl had stood had other structures on it also. The plans were for reconstruction on the entire plot. These plans were submitted to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for their sanction some time in December 1978. The first respondent Board have stated in their affidavit that such sanctioned plans for reconstruction are required to be submitted to the State Government alongwith their proposal for acquisition of the property where reconstruction has to take place. 3. In the present case the first respondent Board have stated that on the plot in question there are several structures including the structure of which the petitioners were tenants. The scheme for reconstruction proposed by them is an integrated scheme in respect of the entire plot which will cover not merely the structure of which the petitioners were tenants but also other structures on the same plot. 4. In November 1978 the Bombay Municipal Corporation objected to the plans submitted by the first respondent Board on the ground that the plans included a plot of land which belonged to the Bombay Municipal Corporation itself. 4. In November 1978 the Bombay Municipal Corporation objected to the plans submitted by the first respondent Board on the ground that the plans included a plot of land which belonged to the Bombay Municipal Corporation itself. Thereafter, the first respondent Board submitted a fresh plan which excluded the plot belonging to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. No sanction, however, was given to the plans submitted by the first respondent Board and the matter remained pending with the Bombay Municipal Corporation in spite of reminders sent from to time by the 1st respondent Board. From the correspondence which is annexed to the affidavits filed by the authorities in the present case, it appears that in the year 1980-81, the first respondent Board was keen to have the said plot acquired through the State Government and it had sufficient funds as its disposal for the purpose of acquisition of the said plot and reconstruction on it. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, however, did not sanction the plans submitted by the first respondent Board and hence the first respondent Board could not submit its proposals to the State Government for acquisition of the said plot which was required to be accompanied by sectioned plans as per their normal practice. 5. Some months prior to November 1980 the owners of the said plot through their authorised agents the second respondents, submitted their plans to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for construction on the said plot, that is to say, in respect of an area which covered the structure of which the petitioners had been tenants as well as other structures. In respect of these plans of the second respondents the Bombay Municipal Corporation issued an Intimation of Disapproval (I.O.D.) under section 347 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, as a result of which sanction was granted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation to the plans as submitted by the second respondent. This sanction was granted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation inter alia on condition that the tenants who had been dishoused as a result of the demolition would be accommodated in the structure to be constructed by the owners and/or the second respondent. This condition was incorporated in the I.O.D. issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. An undertaking in writing to the same effect was also taken from the builders by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. 6. This condition was incorporated in the I.O.D. issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. An undertaking in writing to the same effect was also taken from the builders by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. 6. Thereafter the Bombay Municipal Corporation informed the first respondent Board that in view of the sanction granted to the plans submitted by the owners and/or builders no sanction could be granted in respect of the plans submitted by the first respondent Board. Thereafter discussions took place between the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the first respondent Board in respect of the reconstruction work to be carried out. At a meeting held on 10th August, 1982 with the Director, Engineering, Bombay Municipal Corporation, 34 sites which were under acquisition by the first respondent Board were discussed. It was agreed that commencement certificate should not be issued in respect of plot No. 551 where the Bombay Municipal Corporation had already approved the Board's scheme. For the other plot in the same premises viz. Plot No. 550 where I.O.D. had been issued to the developer, the commencement certificate could be issued to the developer. The demolished building was on plot 550. Thereafter the petitioners received a letter dated 14th December, 1982 from the Executive Engineer of the Board informing them that the Bombay Municipal Corporation, instead of approving the Board's plans for the reconstruction of the building, had approved the plans for the landlords. Therefore under the circumstances, the Board will not be able to consider giving the petitioners premises in the reconstructed building; and the petitioners should contact the landlord in that connection. They were also told that in these circumstances they should not stay in the transit camp because reconstruction would not be done by the Board. The petitioners objected to the reconstruction work being carried out by the landlord and their being deprived of transit accommodation. They have ultimately filed the present petition. 7. In their affidavit the respondents No. 1 have stated that they are ready and willing an are anxious to carry out reconstruction work on the said plot. They have also stated that they are ready and willing to move the Statement Government for having the property acquired for the purpose of their reconstruction scheme. They have stated, however, that the entire scheme has been held up because of the non-approval of their plants by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. They have also stated that they are ready and willing to move the Statement Government for having the property acquired for the purpose of their reconstruction scheme. They have stated, however, that the entire scheme has been held up because of the non-approval of their plants by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. As against this, the contention of the Bombay Municipal Corporation is to the effect that since the Board is not the owner of the property in question the Corporation cannot approve the plans submitted by the Board. It is further submitted that the corporation is bound to approve the plans submitted by the owner of the plot in question. 8. The second respondents (builders) on behalf of the owners have contended that they are entitled to construct on the said plot as they are the agents of the owners and that the Board is not entitle to acquire the said plot under the provisions of the said Act. 9 In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act of 1976. This Act came into operation with effect from 5th December, 1977. Prior to the coming into operation of this Act the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 was in force (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act'). Under section 22(1)(b) of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 the Board constituted under the Act had the power to cause any building proposed to be structurally repaired or reconstructed or demolished to be vacated if so considered necessary, within a specified period, and the take or cause to be taken such steps and use or cause to be used such force as may be reasonably necessary therefor. The Board under the Old Act was also required to give temporary accommodation to such dishoused occupants. The petitioners in the present case were required to vacate the building by virtue of a notice which was issued under section 22(1)(b) of the old Act, since the building was old, in a dilapidated condition and was considered too dangerous for occupation. It was required to be demolished. The petitioners in the present case were required to vacate the building by virtue of a notice which was issued under section 22(1)(b) of the old Act, since the building was old, in a dilapidated condition and was considered too dangerous for occupation. It was required to be demolished. Under section 33 sub-section (3) of the old Act it is provided that if the Board is of the opinion that the cost of structural repairs to a building will exceed one hundred and twenty rupees per square metre, the Board may not consider such building for repairs and may issue a certificate to that effect to the owner thereof, affix a copy of such certificate in some conspicuous part of the building for the information of the occupiers and proceed to take action as provided in Chapter VI. Chapter VI deals with acquisition of irreparable buildings and proposals for reconstruction of buildings and rehabilitation of occupiers. In the present case a certificate under section 33 sub-section (3) or of the Old Act was also issued as set out in an affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent Board. The building was thus vacated by the occupants and was demolished. 10. The new Act viz. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976, repeals the old Act. Section 188 of the said Act however, provides that “anything done or any action taken under the provisions of any law so repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act...” Since the said Act contains provisions similar to the provisions of sections 22 and 33 of the old Act the actions taken under the old Act in the present case are deemed to be taken under the corresponding provisions of the said Act. 11. Section 76 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act of 1976 specifies the duties of the Board constituted under the said Act. These duties include the duty to carry out structural repairs to buildings, to carry out ordinary and tenantable repairs to building and to provide temporary or alternative accommodation to the occupiers of any such buildings when repairs thereto are undertaken or when a building collapses. Section 76, sub-sections (d), (e) and (g) are as follows: “76. These duties include the duty to carry out structural repairs to buildings, to carry out ordinary and tenantable repairs to building and to provide temporary or alternative accommodation to the occupiers of any such buildings when repairs thereto are undertaken or when a building collapses. Section 76, sub-sections (d), (e) and (g) are as follows: “76. subject to the provisions of this Chapter, it shall be the duty of the Board -...................................................................................... (d) to move the State Government to acquire old and dilapidated buildings and which are, in the opinion of the Board, beyond repairs; and to reconstruct or to get reconstructed new buildings thereon for the purpose of housing as many occupiers of those properties as possible, and for providing alternative accommodation to other affected occupiers; (e) to move the State Government to acquire old and dilapidated buildings and which were once structurally repaired by the Board, but in respect of which further structural repairs are not in the opinion of the Board possible or economical, and to reconstruct or to get reconstructed (on demolishing existing building) new buildings thereon for the purpose of housing as many occupiers of those properties as possible, and of providing alternative accommodation to other affected occupiers; (f) ... ... ... (g) to take action for demolition of dangerous and dilapidated buildings or portion thereof, which are not capable of being repaired at reasonable expense, and thereby save human lives;” Section 88 deals with structural repairs. It i not necessary to go into the detailed provisions of section 88. Generally speaking the scheme under section 88 is to be effect that where the Board is satisfied that any building which is occupied by persons, is in such a ruinous or dangerous condition that it is imminently likely to fall unless structural repairs are carried out, then the Board shall undertake such repairs to that building. The Board is required to prepare a list of such buildings in the order of priority or urgency and to carry out structural repairs according to the exigencies of the case and its resources. The Board is required to prepare a list of such buildings in the order of priority or urgency and to carry out structural repairs according to the exigencies of the case and its resources. Under sub-section (3) if the Board is of opinion that the cost of structural repairs exceeds three hundred rupees per square metre, the Board may not consider such building for repairs and may issue a certificate to that effect to the owner thereof, affix a copy of the said certificate in some conspicuous part of the building and proceed to take action as provided under the Act. In other words in respect of those buildings where the work of structural repairs can be carried out economically the Board is under an obligation to carry out such repairs depending upon the exigencies of the case, and the Board's resources, while in cases where such structural repairs cannot be carried out economically, the Board need not carry out such structural repairs; (it is not necessary to go into other provision in this connection) but it has power under the subsequent provisions of the Act to move the State Government to acquire such buildings and to reconstruct the building so as to house the former occupants of the building as also other dishoused persons in need of accommodation as set out in section 92 of the said act. Section 91 of the Act is as follows: “91(1) Where a building suddenly collapse or becomes uninhabitable due to fire, torrential rain or tempest or otherwise and all or any of the occupiers thereof are dishoused, the Board shall allot temporary accommodation to such occupiers in any building maintained by the Authority for such purpose at such places and to such extent as it deems fit, and the provisions of the last preceding section shall mutatis mutandis apply as they apply in relation to occupiers of building which are undertaken to be structurally repaired. (2) In the case of any such building, if the Board is of the opinion that the building is capable of being repaired and rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expenses, the Board shall immediately undertake the necessary repairs and the last preceding section and other provisions of this chapter shall apply mutatis mutandis to such repairs as they apply to structural repairs. (3) Where the whole building collapses or is rendered uninhabitable, or the Board is of the opinion that the building is not capable of being repaired and rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expense, the Board may move the State e Government to acquire the property under the provisions of this Chapter and take necessary further action to construct a new building on the site to accommodate the dishoused occupiers and to provide accommodation for other purposes specified in sub-section (2) of section 92 (4) The provisions of succeeding section shall apply mutatis mutandis to the acquisition, reconstruction and rehabilitation of occupiers of such buildings. (5) Where the whole building collapses or is rendered uninhabitable, and is therefore, not capable of being repaired and rendered fit for habitation and the property is not acquired under sub-section (3), then, no plan for erecting any new building or land on which such building was standing shall be sanctioned by the Bombay Corporation unless a no objection certificate from the Board has been produced alongwith such plan for erecting such building.” Section 92(1) provides as follows: “92.(1) If in respect of any building the Board has issued a certificate under sub-section (3) of section 88, or the Municipal Commissioner has under section 354 of the Corporation Act issued a written notice requiring the owner or occupier thereof to pull down the building, with a view to preventing all cause of danger therefrom and the Board is of the opinion that such building is not capable of being repaired or rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expense and is dangerous or injurious to the health or safety of the inhabitants thereof, or where the Bombay Corporation has under section 354-R of the Corporation Act passed resolution declaring the area in which any such building is situated as the clearance area, the Board may submit to the State Government a proposal to acquire the land, including a, proposal for issue of a clearance and compulsory acquisition order to clear and acquire the land with the existing building in whatever conditions thereon and for constructing a new building on the same site, and simultaneously prepare plans and estimates for these purposes.” Under section 93(1) if on receipt of an acquisition proposal under section 92 the State Government is satisfied about the reasonableness of the proposal and of the resources available with the Board for constructing a new building, it may approve the proposal and communicate its approval to the Board. Thereafter acquisition proceedings have to take place in the manner set out in that section. We are not concerned in the present case with this. 12. The dispute centers around the interpretation of sections 91 and 92 of the said Act. The first question relates to the scope of section 91. Does it include within its ambit old and dilapidated buildings which are required to be pulled down by the Board? We are not concerned in the present case with this. 12. The dispute centers around the interpretation of sections 91 and 92 of the said Act. The first question relates to the scope of section 91. Does it include within its ambit old and dilapidated buildings which are required to be pulled down by the Board? Section 76 casts a duty on the Board to move the State Government to acquire old and dilapidated buildings and to reconstruct new buildings in their place. Now, apart from sections 91 and 92 there is no other section in the said Act which provide for acquisition of old and dilapidated buildings which are required to be pulled down. Under section 91 sub-section (1) where a building suddenly collapses or becomes uninhabitable due to fire, torrential rain or tempest or otherwise and the occupiers thereof are dishoused, the Board shall allot temporary accommodation to such persons. Section 91(1) refers to buildings which suddenly collapse. It also refers to buildings which become uninhabitable not merely because of fire, torrential rain or tempest but even otherwise. The adverb “suddenly” is used in conjunction with collapse. It does not apply to buildings which become uninhabitable. The language of section 91(1) is wide enough to include all unhabitable on account of age or lack of upkeep. It would not be correct to limit section 91(1) only to case where the buildings have become uninhabitable on account of some sudden calamity or the other. 13. Even if section 91(1) is construed narrowly, (which in my view is not a correct construction) to cover only sudden calamities, the language of section 91(3) is much wider. It is not restricted by the use of the adverb “suddenly”. Under sub-section (3) where (i) the whole building collapse or (ii) is rendered uninhabitable or (iii) the Board is of the opinion that the building is not capable of being repaired and rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expense, the Board may move the State Government to acquire the property and to take necessary action to construct a new building on the site as set out therein. Hence the right to move the State Government for acquisition arises under section 91(3) in all cases where the building is rendered uninhabitable. The language of section 91(3) thus supports the wider construction of section 91(1). Hence the right to move the State Government for acquisition arises under section 91(3) in all cases where the building is rendered uninhabitable. The language of section 91(3) thus supports the wider construction of section 91(1). Both the sub-sections form a part of the same section and must be harmoniously construed to further the scheme of the Act. Under sub-section (3) there is no reference to sudden collapse or sudden calamity rendering a house uninhabitable. 14. It was submitted by Mr. Parikh, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 that sub-section (3) must be read narrowly to cover only the cases specified in sub-section (1) of section 91. He submitted that sub-section (3) would apply only in cases of sudden collapse or buildings being rendered suddenly uninhabitable on account of certain natural calamities. Hence the right to move the State Government for acquisition arises only in a limited category of cases. This submission must be rejected. In the first place the language of sub-section (1) is wide enough to cover all cases where a building has become uninhabitable, whether on account of a calamity or otherwise. It would bot be correct to confine the provisions of sub-section (1) only to those cases where the building has suddenly become uninhabitable on account of a calamity. Secondly the scheme of the Act requires the Board to repair those buildings which are capable of being repaired economically and to reconstruct those buildings which cannot be so repaired. For such reconstruction, the Act provides for the acquisition of such uninhabitable buildings and their demolition. Section 91 sub-section (1) cannot be so read as to exclude from its purview old and dilapidated buildings which have become uninhabitable. Such buildings are capable of acquisition under sub-section (3). 15. Sub-section (5) provides that in cases referred to in sub-section (3) where the property is not acquired under sub-section (3) the Bombay Municipal Corporation cannot sanction any plan for erecting any new building unless a no objection certificate from the Board has been produced along with such plan for erecting a new building. This provision is meant for the protection of dishoused occupants of the old building. This provision is meant for the protection of dishoused occupants of the old building. When a new building is reconstructed by the Board under the provisions of the Act, there is an obligation on the Board under section 92 sub-section (2) to provide, as far as practicable, in the reconstructed building accommodation to all the occupiers of the old building wit a floor area equivalent to their floor area in the old building, but not exceeding sixty-eight square metres for any occupiers of a residential tenement. If there is any excess accommodation still available under the reconstructed building, the other dishoused occupiers who could not be accommodated in their reconstructed building have a right to be allotted such surplus accommodation. These are valuable rights which are available to dishoused occupants in respect of the buildings reconstructed by the Board. Hence in all cases where the Board does not acquire the property under sub-section (3) of section 91 for the purpose of reconstruction, the plans for erecting any new building by other parties require a no-obligation certificate from the Board. This provision would apply in all cases covered by sub-section (3) of section 91, i.e. all cases where the building has collapsed, all cases where a building is rendered uninhabitable and all cases where the building cannot be repaired and rendered fit for habitation at reasonable expense. This would include cases where an old and dilapidated building is required to be reconstructed. 16. It was submitted that cases of old and dilapidated buildings which require to be pulled down and reconstructed are covered by the provision of section 92 sub-section (1). Section 92 sub-section (1) deals with cases where (i) in respect of any building, the Board has issued a certificate under section 88 sub-section (3) or (ii) the Municipal Commissioner has issued a written notice under section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act requiring the building to be pulled down, and the Board is of the opinion that such a building cannot be repaired at a reasonable expense and (iii) where the Bombay Municipal Corporation has passed a resolution declaring the area as a clearance area under section 354-R of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. In these cases, the Board may submit a proposal for acquisition to the State Government. In these cases, the Board may submit a proposal for acquisition to the State Government. Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provides that where a structure appears to be in a ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure, and to prevent, all cause of danger therefrom. Section 354-R deals with clearance of areas unfit for human habitation. A certificate under section 88 sub-section (3) is issued in respect of a building which cannot be economically repaired as set out in that section. Thus section 92 sub-section (1) deals with three specific types of buildings which are in an uninhabitable condition. Section 92(1) is not exhaustive. Acquisition of uninhabitable buildings not covered by section 92(1) can be done under section 91(3). Both are complementary provisions. 17. There can be no question of any conflict between the provisions of section 91(3) and section 92(1) because all acquisitions, whether under section 91(3) or section 92(1) have to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 92 and 93 and other provisions of that Chapter. The obligations of the Board relating to the occupants of such building are also the same. Hence it is not possible to exclude from the provisions of section 91 sub-section (3) old and dilapidated buildings which are uninhabitable. It therefore follows that the provisions section 91, sub-section (5) would apply to all old and dilapidated buildings which have been rendered uninhabitable and which are not being acquired under section 91(3). 18. In the present case a certificate was issued under section 33(3) of the old Act which is equivalent to section 88(3) of the present Act. Hence section 92(1) would also apply. Mr. Parikh submitted that the certificate under section 33(3) is defective and is not served in the manner prescribed under the section. I need not examine this aspect as the present case is covered also by section 91(3). 19. In the present case after the building was vacated by the occupants pursuant to the notices received from the Board the building has been got demolished by the Board. I need not examine this aspect as the present case is covered also by section 91(3). 19. In the present case after the building was vacated by the occupants pursuant to the notices received from the Board the building has been got demolished by the Board. It has been done in discharge of the Board's duty to take action for demolition of dangerous and dilapidated buildings which are not capable of being repaired at reasonable expense, in order to save human lives (see section 76(g)). It has been submitted that there is no provision under the Act for acquisition of land on which such a building had stood. If this submission were to be accepted the result would be that after such a building is vacated by the occupants the Board is compelled to allow the building to stand until such time as acquisition proceedings in respect of it are initiated and completed, even though allowing such a building to stand may be a source of danger to either the buildings in the neighbourhood or to passers-by. An act which is made for the protection and benefit of the public cannot be so construed as to make it compulsory for the Board to allow dangerous structures to stand if they wish to acquire and reconstruct such structures. The provisions relating to acquisition are attracted at the time when such a building is rendered uninhabitable, or when the Board forms the opinion that the building is not capable of being repaired and rendered fit for habitation at a reasonable cost as set out in the Act. Thereafter the Board may take steps to shift the occupant of such a building to a transit camp and may proceed to have the building demolished. The Board does not thereby lose the right to have the property acquired under the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act relating to acquisition are attracted by virtue of the fact that the buildings had become old and dilapidated and was uninhabitable. Its subsequent demolition does not deprive the Board of its right to have the property acquired for reconstruction for the purpose of housing the dishoused occupants. 20. The contention therefore that the first respondent Board cannot have the power to acquire the property in the petition cannot be accepted. 21. Its subsequent demolition does not deprive the Board of its right to have the property acquired for reconstruction for the purpose of housing the dishoused occupants. 20. The contention therefore that the first respondent Board cannot have the power to acquire the property in the petition cannot be accepted. 21. It is the case of the first respondent Board that they could not proceed with the proposal for acquisition without obtaining sanction of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the plans for reconstruction prepared by them. Section 92 requires the Board to prepare plans and estimates for the purpose of constructing a building on the same site while submitting a proposal for acquisition to the State Government. Under section 93 sub-section (2), on receipt of the Government approval the Board is required to forward the acquisition proposal to the Land Acquisition Officer for initiating land acquisition proceedings. Under sub-sections (3) and (4) the proposed alternative accommodation is required to be notified to the affected occupiers. It is necessary that the plans which are submitted for reconstruction should be sanctioned plans which can be carried out by the Board. The first respondent has submitted that it is its normal practice to attach such sanctioned plans to its proposals for acquisition put before the State Government. 22. It is not the case of the Bombay Municipal Corporation that they could not have sanctioned the plans of the first respondent Board. They have however, submitted that in the present case, there were also plans submitted to them by the owner of the land. In these circumstances they were bound to sanction the plans submitted by the owner as against the plans submitted by the first respondent Board. The argument is specious. In the first place the first respondent Board had initially submitted their plans as far back as 1978. They had submitted their revised plans in 1979. The second respondent submitted their plans only on 19th May, 1980 and they were sanctioned on 29th November, 1980. Prior to May, 1980 the only plans before the Bombay Municipal Corporation were the plans of the first respondent Board. No explanation is given by the Bombay Municipal Corporation why prior to May 1980 the plans submitted by the first respondent Board were not considered or approved. 23. Prior to May, 1980 the only plans before the Bombay Municipal Corporation were the plans of the first respondent Board. No explanation is given by the Bombay Municipal Corporation why prior to May 1980 the plans submitted by the first respondent Board were not considered or approved. 23. Moreover, the plans submitted by the 2nd respondents are required to be accompanied by a no objection certificate from the first respondent Board under section 91(5) before such plans can be sanctioned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. It was submitted by Mr. Parikh that at the meeting of 10th August, 1982 the first respondent Board had agreed to the second respondents reconstructing the said building. He said that this should be considered as sufficient compliance with section 91 sub-section (5). The 1st respondents however, agreed only because I.O.D. had already been issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation to the 2nd respondents' plan. This cannot be considered as compliance with section 91(5). Section 91 sub-section (5) in terms required a no objection certificate from the Board to be produced along with the second respondents' plan. This has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the plans submitted by the second respondents could not and ought not to have been sanctioned. 24. The sanction which was granted to these plans under the provisions of section 347 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act lapses after the expiry of a period of one year. The plans have been revalidated from time to time but even the revalidated plans have lapsed on 28th November, 1983. An application for renewal of sanction is, however, pending. For the purposes of construction, a commencement certificate is also required under the provisions of section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Such a commencement certificate has also not been granted to the second respondent. In these circumstances the Bombay Municipal Corporation is bound to examine the plans submitted by the first respondent Board and to sanction the same under the provisions of section 347 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act if such plans comply with the relevant laws, rules and regulations applicable to such plans. The first respondent Board has throughout taken the stand that they are ready and willing and in fact they are anxious to proceed with their proposal for acquisition. The first respondent Board has throughout taken the stand that they are ready and willing and in fact they are anxious to proceed with their proposal for acquisition. They have submitted that as soon as their plans are sanctioned they will forthwith proceed with their proposals for acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Needless to add, a large number of occupants who were residing in the dilapidated building in question have been dishoused and are in occupation of transit camp accommodation of the first respondent Board. The proposals of the first respondent Board relate to reconstruction and development of the entire plot in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the purpose of housing dishoused persons; and in public interest they are entitled to proceed with their proposal for acquisition. 25. It was submitted by the 2nd respondents that they have given an undertaking to the Bombay Municipal Corporation that they would accommodate in the new building all the dishoused occupants of the building which was pulled down. They should be allowed to proceed with their plans for construction. In their affidavit however, the 2nd respondents had stated that they would provide such alternative accommodation only if they were given the same facilities for reconstructions as the first respondent Board (This includes relaxation of provisions relating to Floor Space Index). At the hearing, however, Mr. Parikh, learned Advocate for the second respondent has very fairly stated that the second respondents are willing to provide this alternative accommodation to all the dishoused occupants of the old building irrespective of whether the second respondents get the same facilities for reconstruction as the first respondent Board or not. The 1st respondent Board has strongly opposed the second respondent's plea of being allowed to reconstruct the building. The second respondents would get a right to construct only if the Board decides not to acquire the property and give a no objection certificate to them. Since such is not the case, the proposals of the second respondent are in contravention of the provisions of section 91(5) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The second respondents would get a right to construct only if the Board decides not to acquire the property and give a no objection certificate to them. Since such is not the case, the proposals of the second respondent are in contravention of the provisions of section 91(5) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. In the premises the rule is made absolute in the following manner: Respondent No. 3, i.e. the Bombay Municipal Corporation are directed to forthwith examine the plans submitted by the first respondents for reconstruction work on plot No. 550 situated at Bhavani Shanker Road, Dadar, Bombay 28 and to sanction the same under section 347 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, if the plans comply with the relevant provisions of law. The first respondents are directed to forthwith proceed with their proposals for acquisition of the said plot in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. There will be an order of injunction in terms of prayer (d). There will also be a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 either by themselves or as agents of the owners from carrying on construction of whatsoever nature or permitting any third party to carry on any construction work of any nature on the said plot No. 550 situate at Bhavani Shankar Board, Dadar, Bombay 28. This order will not prevent the second respondents from fencing or constructing a compound wall around the said plot or from carrying out any permissible tenantable repairs to any existing structure on the said plot, in accordance with law, if entitled to do so. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order a to costs. No order on the Notice of Motion No. 935 of 1984. Liberty to substitute Ex. A with a Xerox copy of on the undertaking given by the 1st respondents to produce the original whenever called upon to do so. Order accordingly. -----