The petitioner seeks to enforce her right to reside in matrimonial house which was owned by the three branches of the family in equal proportions. One, in the family branch namely Shivram died, on his death his share devolved in equal proportions to his widow, their daughter Gayatri and respondent No.8 Atul. The home building on demolition was redeveloped by a firm of builders, Buildarch. Such redevelopment was made after taking No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Mumbai Building reforms and Reconstruction Board in terms of provision of the Maharashtra Housing and Ares Development Act, 1976.
While the construction or the redevelopment is in process, the occupants were required to shift the properties. During this scheme the appellant with her husband and his family also had to shift in the alternate transit accommodation. The appellant with her two sons who were minor remained in the original building. The sons are to be claimed major now and are working with him in his business and one of the son is staying/residing with respondent No.8. As the appellant stayed in the original building, the concerned authorities issued a notice upon her under Section 95-A of the Act of 1976.
On the order of a Single Judge of Bombay High Court, the appellant had shifted to temporary accommodation. After the redevelopment work was completed the building addressed as OM Apartment. Mother-in-law in the appeal was represented by Respondent 8 and her sister Gayatri. As per the documents, it came to the knowledge of the court that the appellant’s husband and his family had certain arrangements with the developers. Atul, his mother and his sisters were the