1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4855 of 2010 Mrs.Pravina Shailesh Panchal & Anr ... Petitioners versus Shri Navin Chandra Ramniklal Shah ... Respondent ... Mr. R.D.Mishra for the petitioners. Mr.J.A.Udaipuri i/b M/s.Udaipuri & Co. for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 29th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the building is situated in a slum area, no suit or eviction proceedings could have been instituted against the petitioner in view of a bar u/s.22 under the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment Act, 1971 (for short “the 2 Slums Act”) The area in which the suit building is situate was declared as slum area in the year 1999. Thereafter, a redevelopment scheme was sanctioned and the slums were demolished and a new building was erected in the year 2001. The respondent was allotted the suit flat in the new building constructed under the redevelopment scheme and started occupying a flat. Later on, it appears that he gave the suit flat on leave and license basis which was renewed from time to time and the last leave and license agreement was entered into on 15th January 2007. It expired on 14th December 2007. As the petitioner did not vacate the premises, proceedings were initiated under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the order for possession was passed by the Competent Authority. That order was confirmed by the Commissioner. 3. Section 22 of the Slums Act provides that notwithstanding contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall except with the previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority - institute, after the commencement of the Slums Act, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of an occupier from any building or land in a slum area or for recovery of any arrears of rent or compensation from any such occupier, or for both. The bar agreed u/s.22 applies in respect of the premises which is a slum 3 situated a slum area. The suit property is not a slum. The original slums were demolished in pursuance of the scheme for development sanctioned under the Slum Act. The suit premises in occupation of the petitioner form part of the building which is erected in pursuance of a redevelopment scheme. After construction of the new building and allotment of flats therein to the occupants, the building would cease to be a slum. Consequently, bar u/s.22 would not apply to the suit premises. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of this order as he wants to challenge the order in a superior court. I accordingly direct that execution of the order passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the Commissioner shall not be executed for a period of 12 weeks from today subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the court in the usual form within two weeks. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)