1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2218 OF 2002 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.816 OF 2002 Revansiddha Bhanudas Pawar : Applicant. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr. : Respondents. Mrs.Manisha Shekhar for the Applicant. Mr.J.J.Xavier, for Respondent No.1-BMC Ms.Usha Rahi i/by Mayur Narendra & Co. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : AUGUST 21, 2008 P.C. 1. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant, in terms of prayer clause (a), prays for stay to the execution and operation of the impugned notice dated 23.01.1987 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone II of the Respondent No.1/Corporation and as also stay to the notice dated 15.07.1987 issued by the same officer and stay to the order dated 16.02.1993 passed by the Deputy 2 Municipal Comm, Zone II of Respondent No.1/Corporation. In terms of prayer clause (b), the Applicant prays for stay to the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay in L.C.Suit No.5635 of 1987. 2. The Applicant is the original Appellant who has filed the above Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.03.2002 passed in L.C.Suit No.5635 of 1987. The said suit was filed by the Applicant/Appellant challenging the notice dated 23.01.1987 issued under Section 351 of the B.M.C Act and notice dated 15.7.1987 as also the order dated 16.02.1993. The said notice under Section 351 was issued by the Respondent No.1/Corporation in respect of the Applicant's structure being Room No.11A situated at Ganesh Onkar Chawl Opposite T.J.Road, Sewree, Bombay 400 015 admeasuring 20 x 6 ft. The Applicant claims to be residing in the said Room No.11A since 1971 or there abouts. It is an admitted position that even today the said room is in existence and the Applicant is residing therein. 3 3. Respondent No.2, who claims to be the landlord, has filed his affidavit in reply opposing interim reliefs sought by the Applicant. The case of the Respondent No.2 is that the reliefs sought for have been rejected in view of the dismissal of the above Civil Application, which was dismissed for default along with the First Appeal. Save and except the said objection, there is no other ground on which the said interim reliefs are opposed. 4. In view of the fact that the above First Appeal as well as the Civil Application were restored to file by this Court, the objection of Respondent No.2 to the reliefs sought by the Applicant in the above Civil Application does not survive. Considering the fact that the above Appeal has been admitted and also considering the fact that the Applicant is residing in the premises in question along with his family members, there would have to be interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The above Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the Applicant would not part with possession and create third party interest in respect of the said Room No.11A pending disposal of the Appeal. 4 [R.M.SAVANT, J]