1 145.07-lpa bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5712 OF 2006 S.K.Yadav & Ors. ..Appellants Vs. The Competent Authority & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.Neeta Karnik for appellants. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2010 P.C. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5712 of 2006. The relevant facts are, that one Balkrishna Vengurlekar had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.502 of 1998 against the appellants seeking a decree of possession against them in the Small Causes Court. There was a decree of eviction passed against the appellants for evicting them from room No.6. The decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the appellants in the appellate Court but the appeal was rejected on 21st January, 2004. The Decree Holder, thereafter filed Execution Application No.96 of 2004 for execution of decree. At that time, it was discovered that the property has been declared as a slum and therefore permission of the Competent Authority under Section 21 is necessary before execution of that decree. The Decree Holder, therefore, 2 145.07-lpa approached the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority, by an order dated 18th May, 2005 granted permission to the Decree Holder to execute the decree. 2. That order passed by the Competent Authority was challenged in this Court by way of Writ Petition No.4266 of 2005. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 20th October, 2005. This Court did not interfere with that order because remedy under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971 was available to the appellants. The appellants, therefore, filed an appeal under section 35 of that Act before the Administrator. That appeal has been rejected by the order dated 20th July, 2006 by the Appellate Authority. Writ Petition No.5712 of 2006 was filed before this Court challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. Learned Single Judge of this Court rejected that petition in limine vide order dated 21st September, 2006. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. We find from the record that the Civil Court had passed a decree on recording a finding that the appellants are not actually occupying the suit room. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority granting permission to execute the decree for the reasons that it has been found by the Civil Court that the appellants were not actually occupying the room. If the appellants are not actually occupying the room, then they do not need any protection provided by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971 because the protection is granted only to the slum dwellers who are actually occupying the room. Taking over all view of the matter, as the finding that the appellants are not actually occupying the room, has become final and binding on the appellants, no fault can be found with the Competent 3 145.07-lpa Authority in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants. The appeal is, therefore, fails and dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application, if any, does not survive. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)