MUMBAI, Aug. 29 -- The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has told the Bombay High Court that senior citizens, who had been awaiting permanent alternative accommodation after giving up their slum tenements in Sion Koliwada for a rehabilitation project more than 15 years ago, have now been allotted permanent homes and will be given possession by Monday. The development, on Friday, came after the court issued contempt notices to the SRA's chief executive officer (CEO) and two officials of its grievance cell on Tuesday for allegedly breaching repeated assurances given to the court that the slum-dwellers would be heard and their grievances redressed. The court had also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on the SRA and directed that the sum be paid as compensation to the petitioners. "In our opinion, this would end the grievance of the petitioners," a division bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale said on Friday, while hearing a petition filed by 75-year-old Kesra Gupta and others, who have been seeking permanent alternative accommodation after giving up their slum tenements for a rehabilitation project more than 15 years ago. Gupta had vacated her tenement in Indira Nagar, Sion Koliwada, in March 2011 for a slum rehabilitation scheme. She was subsequently shifted to a 125-sq ft room in temporary transit accommodation. According to the petition, the transit camp has since deteriorated considerably and is now dilapidated, raising concerns about the safety of its occupants. Despite the passage of time, Gupta said she had not been provided permanent alternative accommodation. After exhausting administrative remedies for more than a decade, Gupta approached the high court in October last year, alleging that her grievances had remained unresolved amid bureaucratic inertia and regulatory apathy. When the matter came up on Tuesday, advocate Shakil Ahmed, appearing for Gupta, pointed out to the court that senior citizens had been "languishing in a transit camp" for several years and that their complaint applications had not been redressed by the SRA's Special Cell. The court had said the SRA's assurances were "clearly an eyewash" and had certainly "affected the administration of justice". "What has really shocked the conscience of the court is that we were persistently misled to believe that the grievance of the applicants would be redressed, with full knowledge that such assurances were false, amounting to a brazen disobedience of the orders passed by this court which appears to be quite intentional," the bench observed....