agk RP42-08 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.42 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6425 OF 2007 Mahadeo Gajanan Desai .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.R.A.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that application for transfer of tenancy was made by the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation has transferred the tenancy. He submitted that there is no material available on record to come to the conclusion that the tenancy was granted in favour of Hanuman Nagar Bhadekaru Sangh. He submitted that said Bhadekaru Sangh is no more in existence and no one has raised any objection to transfer the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. 2 I have considered the submissions. The order of eviction passed against the petitioner has been confirmed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil agk RP42-08 (2) Court in appeal. By the order sought to be reviewed, this Court has confirmed the said orders. The finding of the authorities is that originally the premises were allotted to said Bhadekaru Sangh of which the father of the petitioner was the secretary. In fact the application form filled in by the petitioner and annexed to the review petition also indicates that his father was holding tenement not in his individual capacity but in capacity as the secretary of the said Bhadekaru Sangh. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim any right in respect of the tenement. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. 3 At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a slum rehabilitation scheme has been sanctioned for the property and rights of the petitioner under the said scheme may be kept intact. 4 Suffice it to say that there is no case for review. If the petitioner is entitled to claim any rights under the slum rehabilitation scheme, it is for the petitioner to prosecute the same independently in that behalf. Subject to what is observed above, review petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)