1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION LOD. NO.66 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1436 OF 2010 Rambachan Pabbar Gaud .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Lokhande a/w Mr.D.A.Nalawade for respondent No.3. Mr.R.U.Singh for respondent No.6. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 28th January 2011 P.C.: The review petitioner and the advocate is absent. 2 The review petition has appeared before this Court on 21st January 2011 and by consent the hearing was adjourned till today. The review petitioner and his advocate were well aware of the ‘adjourned’ 2 date. 3 The review petitioner is the plaintiff in L.E and C Suit No.71/93 of 2010 which is stated to be pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 4 The only ground on which review is sought is that this Court while disposing of the writ petition had protected the petitioner by observing that until the injunction application in this suit is decided by the Court of Small Causes, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short SRA) shall not hand over possession of the rehabilitation tenement viz B-705 in rehab building Jai Bajrang Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The contention of the review petitioner is that the attention of this Court was not invited to the fact that the interim notice Exh.11 in the said suit had already been disposed off on 7th July 2010 when the Division Bench passed the subject order dated 28th July 2010. Therefore, this Court while protecting the interest of the petitioner referred to the interlocutory proceedings but they were no 3 longer pending on 28th July 2010. Hence, this error apparent be corrected and the protection be extended till the disposal of the above suit. 5 Therefore, this order should be corrected and the petitioners should be protected till the suit in the Small Causes Court is finally disposed of and until that stage the SRA should not hand over possession of the said tenement to either the review petitioner or the respondent No.6 who is the original defendant No.1 in that suit. 6 After having heard the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.6 and perusing with his assistance the order passed on 28th July 2010, so also the order dated 7th July 2010, we are of the opinion that bearing in mind the prima facie observations of the Court of Small Causes it would not be fair, just and proper to keep the tenement vacant till the disposal of the suit. Such a course will mean that the tenement will be unused and unutilised by anybody. Thus, assuming there is any factual error in the order under review, 4 correction thereof will not carry the petitioner’s case any further. Therefore, this review petition can be disposed of with a direction that if at all SRA proceeds to allot the rehab tenement to the respondent No.6, yet, that allotment will be subject to the final orders in the suit and the SRA will have to abide by the same. The review petition is disposed off in these terms. 7 We had to proceed with the review petition because the bench specially constituted for review petitions will not be able to again assemble to hear only one review petition. In such circumstances, we have perused the record and disposed off this review petition. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE, J)