- 1 - 33-cac-419-2011 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.419 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2011 Shri Prakash Deolkar .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. Baby B. Patil .. Respondent. Mr. S. S. Redekar, for Applicant. Mr. Vinod S. Pandey i/b. Mr. M.S. Pandey, for Respondent. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2 Leave to amend the Civil Application to correct the prayer clause (b), is granted. 3 Perused the earlier order dated 27th September, 2011. Advocate for the Respondent has placed on record copy of letter dated - 2 - 33-cac-419-2011 18th February, 2010 issued by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/ Removal), Malad addressed to the Respondent, indicating that since the declaration of slum had been set aside by Judgment and Order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal in Appeal No.13 of 2007, the land being the suit premises had been excluded, there was no question of granting any permission for execution of the decree. The decree has been executed on 18th August, 2010 and the Applicant has been dispossessed. 4 Mr. Redekar submits that the Applicant has filed Writ Petition No.2170 of 2010 on the Original Side of this Court, in which the said order dated 13th August, 2010 has been stayed on 25th November, 2010. It is thus clear that on the date of dispossession, there was no valid declaration of slum in existence and the decree has been executed. 5 In view of this, it is not possible to grant relief of restoration of possession. 6 However, since C.R.A. is already admitted, it is essential to preserve the property in the present state and for that purpose, prayer clause (b) will have to be considered. The learned Advocate for the - 3 - 33-cac-419-2011 Respondent states that Respondent has already inducted Mr. Naresh D. Gharat as a tenant in the suit premises. If that be so, it is necessary to direct that no further alienation of the suit premises should be done. Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) Relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is rejected. Relief in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted, after noting that the third party tenant namely - Mr. Naresh D. Gharat has already been inducted as a new tenant, the said new tenant is obviously claiming through Respondent, he would also be bound by this injunction. (ii) It is, therefore, directed that the Respondent and new tenant claiming through Respondent are restrained from creating any third party rights and interest and/or parting with possession and also restrained from changing nature of the suit premises and/or demolished the suit premises in any manner till the disposal of the Civil Revision Application. (iii) Civil Application is disposed off with no order as to costs. 7 Hearing of the Civil Revision Application is expedited. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)