: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.403 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.475 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.522 OF 2008 IN L.C.SUIT NO.523 OF 2008 Mrs.Conception Fernandes ....Appellant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.L.K. Tripathi for the Appellant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. I am bound by the judgment of this Court in 1998(2) Mah.L.J. 188 and 1974 Mah.L.J. 589. There is no dispute that the Appellant’s husband had retired from the service on 31.8.1981 and that the competent authorities had passed an order for vacating the premises on 21.3.1983. The Appeal against the order was dismissed on 18.3.1996 directing him to handover possession on or before 30.4.1986. He expired thereafter. Even assuming that no action was taken by the Respondents thereafter in view of the above judgments, the impugned order warrants no interference. : 2 : 2. If the landlord had successfully adopted the proceedings for de-requisition of the premises, it would have been a different matter. However, no such proceedings have been referred to. 3. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The Civil Application is accordingly dismissed. 4. It is clarified that this order does not prevent the Respondent from considering the representation made by the Appellant or any representations that may be made by the Appellant. The time to vacate the premises is extended upto 31.8.2008.