1 1014.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1014 OF 2011 Smt.Kavita Singh and another. ... Appellants. V/s. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority and others. ... Respondents. Anil Singh with Siddharth Kanka i/b. Y.K.S.Legal for the appellant. P.G.Lad for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 10th October 2011. P.C. : The challenge raised in this appeal from order is to the order dated 24th June 2011 dismissing Notice of Motion No.2487/2011 taken out in S.C.Suit No.2040/2010. It is not disputed that the appellant/ original plaintiff is not the allottee of the tenement in question, although she is in possession of the tenement belonging to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) since 1996. It is contended by the appellant that the President of MHADA had assured her that she would be allotted the tenement which is in her possession and relying on the said assurance she remained in possession of the tenement since 1996. It is further contention of the appellant that she used to pay monthly premium to the MHADA and, as such, she is entitled to reside in the tenement. The respondent- MHADA issued notice to the appellant calling upon her to 2 1014.11-ao appear before the authority within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice along with all necessary documents. It was also informed to the appellant that she would be given hearing and after verification of the documents appropriate order will be passed. After extending opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the respondent- MHADA proceeded to pass order on 16th September 2010 directing the appellant to vacate the tenement or else it was informed to her that the possession of the premises would be taken forcibly. The appellant presented suit before the City Civil Court and sought declaration in respect of order under section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, against the respondent- MHADA. By way of interim relief it was also prayed for suspension of the order passed by MHADA. 2. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court and on considering the provisions of section 95A of the Act, in my opinion, the action taken by the MHADA is in consonance with the legal provisions and no infirmity can be found with the action taken by the authority. Admittedly, the appellant/ plaintiff is not the allottee of the tenement, as such, her occupation of the premises is unauthorised and needs to be vacated by taking recourse to the provisions of the Act. There is no substance in the appeal. Appeal from order is, thus, dismissed. 3. In view dismissal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)