[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. NO.78 OF 2009 IN REVIEW APPLN.NO.65 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.724 OF 2008 Shri.Ramesh Keshav Rathod ..Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Vineet D’Silva for Appellant Ms.M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant after seeking instructions from the Appellant who is personally present in Court, states that according to the Appellant, his name is already placed in Annexure-II prepared by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) Bandra who is also Competent Authority in implementing the project under Slum Rehabilitation Act and therefore, the [-2-] Appellant would be eligible for tenement as and when the slum is redeveloped. 3. In view of this, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant would vacate the premises and hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the Respondent No.3 within a period of eight weeks from today i.e. on or before 8.5.2009. We accept this statement. In view of the fact that the Appellant does not press for his Appeal, we grant him time to vacate the premises as per statement of his Advocate, which is accepted as an Undertaking by the Appellant who is presently present in the Court. 4. Appeal stands disposed of as not pressed. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]