Judgment 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The Appellants original Respondents, a public statutory body constituted under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, MMC Act) are entitled to take action of eviction and/or evacuation and/or demolition in respect of the occupation/ construction of the premises, authorized and/or unauthorized, in the city of Bombay, have challenged order dated 10 April 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai thereby granted interim injunction till the final disposal of the Suit in terms of prayer (a), part of which is as under: a) That during the pendency and final hearing of the Suit, the Defendants, their agents, their servants, their representatives, their constituents and any persons claiming through the Defendants be permanently restrained by an Order of temporary injunction from proposing to demolish/evict/dispossess the said tenants i.e. the tenants as referred in Exh. B to the plaint from the suit premises i.e. premises situated in the suit building bearing Building No.12/A situated at M.M.R.D.A. Sankalp Vashat, Natwar Parekh Compound, Ghatkopar – Mankhurd Link Road (Boria), Govandi West, Mumbai 400 043, pursuant to the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 issued by the Defendant No.2, and without following the due process of law.” 3. The Respondent Society, consistent occupier/tenants of their respective tenements/ rooms in the building in question registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative societies Act, 1960. The suit building is assessed by the Appellants/Respondents, is the property of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA). Pursuant to road widening scheme, tenants who were having their huts/premises on Rafi Ahmad Kidwai Road, Sewree, Mumbai, allotted the suit premises in lieu of their respective huts after verifying their eligibility as slum dwellers and their entitlement. The Appellants, prior to that, issued notice under Section 354 of MMC Act to inquire their claims and rights for allotment of permanent accommodation. On 13.03.2007, it was replied accordingly. The Appellant's officer after due verification, at that time issued Letter of Allotment to the respective occupants/tenants. They are occupying their respective rooms in pursuance to the same allotment letters and also in view of respective possession receipts. They formed Society as referred above. They are enjoying all the amenities like electricity, water supply from the concerned Authorities since then and making payment of regular proportionate dues/charges. 4. Certain tenants filed a Suit being Suit No.1330/2011 along with Notice of Motion. They formed Society as referred above. They are enjoying all the amenities like electricity, water supply from the concerned Authorities since then and making payment of regular proportionate dues/charges. 4. Certain tenants filed a Suit being Suit No.1330/2011 along with Notice of Motion. The learned Judge granted order of status-quo and the same has been in force till this date. The status-quo order was not continued is also issue and submission so made by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The averments as well as documents annexed including roznama shows that the order of status-quo was continued till the decision of Motion by order dated 24.11.2011 The respective 43 occupiers/tenants are of building No.12A situated at MMRDA, Mankhurd Link Road, Govandi (West). 5. The Appellants issued letter dated 1.6.2012 and called upon respective tenants to submit their documents. The documents of their respective claims and rights had been submitted and so also the reply through Advocates on 5.6.2012. The Appellants, however, on 16.10.2012, by cyclostyled orders, declared tenants/occupiers as a trespasser and threated to eviction proceedings though the order of status-quo in the Suit referred above has been in force. The tenants, therefore, though their Advocate on 12.10.2012 resisted every action of Respondents and submitted to follow the due process of law before taking action against such tenants/occupants. The Respondents, therefore, left with no choice but to file another Suit being Suit No.5690/12 on 1.11.2012 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai and prayers are made again to set aside order dated 16.10.2012 and sought declaration that the Appellants should not dispossess them without following the due process of law. The Motions, as referred above, are the offshoots of the present civil proceeding. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants has relied upon the following judgments in support of submissions about the power, authority and the procedure to take possession of premises from the trespassers and/or occupiers, based upon the provisions of the law. The submissions are also made that the binding decisions are sufficient to maintain the action so initiated by the Corporation by following the due process of law. The action/order is well within the frame of law and the record. The submissions are also made that the binding decisions are sufficient to maintain the action so initiated by the Corporation by following the due process of law. The action/order is well within the frame of law and the record. (i) BCR 2004 (6) 552 Judgment dated 2.8.2004 in Second Appeal No.755/2004 – Govinda Bhagoji Kamable v. Sadu Bapu Kamable (ii) (2012) 5 SCC 370 – Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead). (iii) Order dated 23.11.2011 in Appeal from Order No.1215/2011 with CA No.160711 – Mr. Noor Mohd. Abdul Kadar vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (iv) Order dated 23.1.2013 in Appeal from Order (St) No.17759/2012 – Sairabano Monis Ansari v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. (v) Order dated 13 August 2012 in Appeal from Order No.1260/2011 – Duyllai Mirchand Shaikh vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai along with companion matters. We have to consider the facts of this case. The law so declared need to be extended accordingly. The power and authority of Appellant is not the issue. Above cases, therefore, need no further discussion. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has cited the following judgments for the respective propositions:- (i) (2004) 1 SCC 769 – Rame Gowda (D) by lrs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by lrs. A person in possession is entitled to retain possession save and except be disposed by due process of law. (ii) AIR 1989 SC 2097 : 1989 (1) SCC 131 – Krishna Ram Mahale vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao Even a trespasser cannot be evicted/thrown out without following due process of law. (iii) 2002 AIR (HP) 131 : 2002 (4) CCC 270 – Roshan Lal V. Kartar Chand In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any fraud, misrepresentation breach of trust, undue influence … Particulars with dates and items if necessary shall be stated in the pleading, Mere allegations of general nature does not suffice. (iv) 1997 AIR (SC) 31: 1996 (11) SCC 127 – Municipal Corporation v. Chelaram and sons and anr. Before depriving a person of his property, the principles of natural justice require prior notice and reasonable opportunity to him to put forth his claim or objections , the power conferred upon the local Authority is a quasi-judicial power which implies that the same has to be exercised after observing the principles of natural justice and by passing the speaking order. 8. The Apex Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes (supra) after considering various provisions of Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) while dealing with the property law referring to classes of possession dealt with also principles of injunction protecting the position/ejectment/dispossession and related issues. The concept “due process of law” is elaborated in the following terms: “77 The court must ensure that pleadings of a case must contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces the ability to put forward a nonexistent or false claim or defence. In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title documents and relevant records play a vital role and that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case. 79 Due process of law means that nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an opportunity to the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a competent court. (emphasis added). 81 False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a large extent.” 9. So far as the aspect of taking steps of eviction and/or dispossession by the Appellants, I am inclined to observe that in the present case Notice dated 1 June 2012 was issued, thereby Respondents/members called upon to produce documents and ultimately on 16 October 2012, after considering the reply and the documents, the decision was given. Even otherwise, now the matter is pending in the Court. Therefore, any judgment and/or order passed by the Court need to be executed in accordance with law. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the Appellants have followed the due process of law before taking impugned action in question. Even otherwise, now the matter is pending in the Court. Therefore, any judgment and/or order passed by the Court need to be executed in accordance with law. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the Appellants have followed the due process of law before taking impugned action in question. We have to consider the impugned decision and the action so initiated on other grounds. 10. The Respondents/members' possession as on the date of the impugned action is not in disputed. What is in dispute is the way and the methodology which they adopted to take the possession back though they were dispossessed earlier in accordance with law. Even for taking alleged possession and/or evicting the occupier's including the alleged trespasser, the due process need to be followed by all including the Appellant /Corporation. 11. The dispute with regard to the possession receipt and allotment letters, as alleged to be forged just cannot be decided merely on the basis of affidavit of officers and the averments and/or submission so made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. This requires detailed consideration. The case of fraud and/or misrepresentation and/or forgery just cannot be decided on the basis of oral submissions and/or affidavit so filed on record without putting the same to trial as Respondents/members have not admitted and/or accepted the case of Appellants. The case is that they are in possession based upon the valid documents issued by the Appellant's officers. Unless those documents/actions declared to be null and void and/or illegal and/or the case of forgery as averred is made out, no case can be accepted to set aside the impugned order. The person in possession cannot be dispossessed without above decision. 12. The issue of acquiescence and/or acceptance of payment of whatsoever nature by the appellant in no way entitle the Respondents/members to continue and/or deny the case of Appellant for eviction and/or for the action so initiated. However, as recorded, it is subject to trial. Even the inventory and Annexure II which is though placed on record, read with the allotment letters and the possession receipt required to be tested by giving opportunity to all. However, as recorded, it is subject to trial. Even the inventory and Annexure II which is though placed on record, read with the allotment letters and the possession receipt required to be tested by giving opportunity to all. The pendency of criminal cases against the trespasser has also additional reason as unless the same is decided in accordance with law, so far as the aspect of forgery/forged documents is concerned, the case of Appellants cannot be accepted to permit them to take possession of the premises at this stage of the proceedings. 13. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the balance of convenience, equity lies in favour of the Respondents/members who are in settled possession of the premises. They will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, by keeping all points open, I am inclined to maintain the reasoned order so passed and also for the above reasons. However, in view of above fact itself, the Suit is expedited. To be disposed of preferably within nine months from today. 14. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. However, the Suit is expedited. To be disposed of as early as possible and preferably within nine months. The written statement to be filed within four weeks from today. 15. In view of dismissal of Appeal, Civil Application No.1344/2013 is also disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.