- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 378 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 443 OF 2008 Zubeda Khatoon Chaudhary .. Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V. Ramkrishnan for the Appellant. Mrs. K. K. Soran, for the Respondent-BMC. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JUNE 9, 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 136 of 2008, taken out in Suit No. 134 of 2008. The learned Judge held that the appellants along with certain others were not entitled to be rehabilitated by the Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the respondent - BMC drew my attention to a document, which is marked Exhibit “G” wherein the name of Zubeda - 2 - Khatoon Chaudhary appears at serial No. 86. It may be seen that the original dweller of the hutment was Lakshman Kisan Bhandekar when the project was actually started. The hutment was found to be in possession of Zubeda Chaudhary, and on 22nd April 2003 when an inspection was taken out Zubeda Chaudhary was shown to have inducted a tenant by name Sitarsam Shinde, who was running a Kirana Stores there. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that this document would clearly show that Zubeda Chaudhary, the appellant is the project affected person and not said Lakshman Kisan Bhandekar and therefore, the appellant is entitled to protection. He also submits that some Mr. Ganesh, stated to be a person whose name appearing at Exhibig “H”, had been granted protection. The learned counsel also sought to draw my attention to the decision of this Court in some other matter, without filing the same on record along with all the pleadings and orders passed therein. From the material on record, it cannot be said that the learned Judge of the Trial Court was wrong in holding that the petitioner was not a project affected person who was entitled to be rehabilitated. If the hutment dweller who ought to have been in possession of the site, as project affected person was Lakshman Kisan - 3 - Bhandekar only, he would entitled to be rehabilitated and not transferees from him. Merely because the the appellant was found to be actually in possession of the hutment, at the time of re-location, the appellant does not get any rights. 3. All these observations are without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to prove and plead his case before the trial Court, while the suit is still pending. The appellant was rightly held to be disentitled to the relief, by the trial Court. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. 4. Since monsoon is to commence shortly, the interim order will continue for a period of eight weeks, subject to appellants filing an undertaking on oath within 2 weeks that at the end of eight weeks period, unless she gets orders from the higher forum or the suit is decided in her favour, she would vacate the premises. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]