: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.9 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9 OF 2010 Shamsuddin Basarat Ali Ansari .. Appellant V/s. Shakti SRA Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr. Respondents Mr. J.G. Reddy i/b. Mr. Sunil Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. M.M. Vashi for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 3 RD MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed in Draft Notice of Motion in S.C. Suit No.2846 of 2009 by the City Civil Court, Bombay, refusing ad- interim relief to the appellant. 2. The suit structure which is in possession of the appellant is situated in an area which is declared a slum under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The area is being redeveloped under the SRA : 2 : Scheme by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has sought to evict the appellant since the Slum Authority has found him ineligible for alternate accommodation by its order dated 13th June, 2006. Aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents of seeking to evict him by demolishing the suit premises, the appellant has approached the trial Court. The trial Court has by the impugned order observed that the plaintiff had not made out any prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim injunction. 3. After the matter was heard for some time on earlier occasion, notice was issued to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, although the appellant has chosen not to make it a party-defendant. The learned Advocate appearing for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, on instructions, states that although the name of the appellant does not figure in the list of persons who are eligible for alternate accommodation on the basis that they are pitch holders, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is willing to reconsider the applicant’s case within a stipulated time. : 3 : 4. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Appeal from Order is disposed of by the following order : “O R D E R” (i).The appellant shall appear before the Deputy Collector of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on Monday, the 8th March, 2010, at 11 A.M. (ii).The Slum Rehabilitation Authority will decide the appellant’s claim within a period of six weeks from today. (iii).Mr. Vashi, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, states that the suit premises will not be demolished, nor will the appellant be evicted from the suit premises, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. He further states that the appellant will not be evicted for a period of two weeks after the order is : 4 : communicated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the appellant, in case the order is adverse to the appellant. (iv).The learned Advocate for the appellant states that the Suit will be withdrawn by the appellant within a week from today. (v).In view of the above, Civil Application No.9 of 2010 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.