:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2008 Shri Ramesh K.Rathod ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.R.R.Arolkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Thomas Almeida, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 3RD MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai on 3.01.2008 in an Appeal under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slum Act’) for short. The petitioners’ only contention is that he is sought to be evicted in execution of a Decree for possession passed in favour :2: :2: :2: of the Respondent no.3 before me. That was in a suit filed in the court of Small Causes at Bombay being R.A.E. and R.Suit No.1094/3355 of 1985. 2. The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai upheld the order passed by the Deputy Collector, (Encroachment Removal) and Competent Authority dated 23.08.2007 granting permission to the respondent No.3-Decree holder for execution of the Decree. 3. After this matter was heard for some time, instead of this court going into the legality and validity of the orders impugned in this Writ Petition, parties agree that the Writ Petition itself be disposed off by the following order :- (a) The petitioner-Ramesh Keshav Rathod does not press the challenge to the impugned orders but seeks one years time to vacate the suit premises. (b) In such circumstances, and taking over all view of the matter, the petitioner is granted time to :3: :3: :3: vacate till 31.03.2009 provided he executes the Undertaking in this court in the following terms. (i) the petitioner will not alieante, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in respect of the suit premises and will pay the monthly Rent regularly in respect of the suit Premises. (ii) If the Undertaking is filed within the period stipulated above, then, the Decree for Eviction shall not be executed till 31.03.2009. In default of the Undertaking or in default of the compliance of the terms and conditions recorded above, as also forming part of the Undertaking the Decree shall become enforceable forthwith and thereupon the petitioners shall be evicted with such force, as is necessary. (iii) In case, the Undertaking is filed, the decree for Eviction not to be executed till 31.03.2009. :4: :4: :4: (iv) The Respondent No.3 is at liberty to execute the Decree after 31st March, 2009 ad it would not be necessary for him to seek a fresh permission under Section 22 of the Slum Act. The orders of the Authorities are upheld. 4. Writ petition disposed off in the above terms with no costs. 5. Mr.Arolkar, states that the monthly rent is already paid and will be continued to be paid by the petitioners. ********