1 34.wp7866.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7866 OF 2011 Shri Zahiruddin Mohd. Shaikh. ....Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ....Respondent. Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Malwankar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 12, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Jamdar, Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. M.M. Malvankar, Advocate for Respondent. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner was in the employment of Respondent Corporation and, in that capacity he was allotted a staff quarter bearing Room No. A/25 on the Second floor, Gilder Lane, Municipal Colony, Mumbai Central, Mumbai and that he is retired on 1/5/2008. After his retirement eviction proceedings under section 105-B of M.M.C. Act, 1888 have been initiated. 2 34.wp7866.11 2. Principal defence of the Petitioner was to the effect that he was staying in tenement No. C/21 whereas the eviction proceedings were initiated in respect of premises No. A/25. That aspect has been elaborately considered by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Judgment. I do not find any perversity with the said findings. 3. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, on an oral request made by Shri Jamdar, Petitioner is permitted to withdraw prayer clause (b) from this Petition and file appropriate proceedings for seeking appropriate reliefs, if so advised. 4. Subject to the aforesaid clarifications regarding prayer clause (b) there is no error of jurisdiction committed either by the Enquiry Officer or by the City Civil Court. There is no perversity in the finding. Rejected. 5. However, the order of eviction is stayed for a period of 2 months from today. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)