1 CRA-606.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.606 OF 2008 Mrs. Sharifa Bi Hanif Shaikh .... Applicant Vs. The Metropolitan & Regional Development Authority & Anr. .... Respondents Shri V.R. Tripathi for the Applicant. Ms Kiran Bhagalia for the Respondents. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 21, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, rejecting the applicant s appeal against an order passed by the Lands Manager & Competent Authority, MMRDA, Mumbai. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at adequate length. Even if it is presumed that the applicant has been on the site in question since before 1-1-1995, still since the site in question is not a slum covered by the provisions of the Maharashtra 2 CRA-606.08 Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, there is no question of the applicant being entitled to protection simply because she was in possession before 1-1-1995. The affidavit filed by Dilip Dhondu Garje, Executive Engineer of Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board is on the record which shows that the applicant was issued with a photo pass on the mistaken belief that the area was a part of Bharat Nagar Transit Camp. In fact, it is an isolated structure not situated in a slum area. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court erred in concluding that the applicant did not have any authority to continue in possession over the site. The appeal was, therefore, rightly dismissed, maintaining the order passed by the Competent Authority. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision application is rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant does not desire to take the matter any further and the applicant would vacate the premises but should be given a period of six months for doing so since she has been in possession for a very long time. The 3 CRA-606.08 order may not be executed for a period of six months, i.e., upto 31-1-2011, provided the applicant has not already been removed, on the applicant furnishing an undertaking on oath that before 31-1-2011 she would vacate the site and have the premises demolished, would not induct any third person or create any difficulties in demolition of the premises. The undertaking should also be signed by all the adult members of the family of the applicant, & be filed within 2 weeks. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)