1 (WP1799/97) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1799 OF 1997 Nagnath Tatyaba Salgar and others ..... Petitioners. v/s The Assistant Municipal Commissioner & Competent Authority & Anr. ..... Respondents. Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar i/b Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar for the Petitioners. Mr. V.B. Naik for Respondent No.1. Mr. Prashant Darandale i/b Mr. V.D. Patil for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th June, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents. 2. Petitioners are original tenants and the Respondent No.2 is the original landlord. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as “landlord” and “tenants”. 2 (WP1799/97) 3. Landlord filed an application under section 22(1) (4AB) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R) Act, 1976 seeking permission to file suit against the tenants for eviction on various grounds. The competent authority was pleased to dismiss the said application and, against the said order, landlord preferred an appeal under section 23 of the said Act. Tribunal allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, tenants have filed this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Admitted position is that the landlord had filed suit against the tenants vide Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1977 for eviction of the tenants on various grounds. The suit was dismissed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur on 8/12/1982. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/tenants has taken me through the judgment and order of the competent authority as well as the order of the Tribunal. In my view, Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal. Tribunal had observed that it was always open for the tenants to establish that the cause of action to file suit for eviction did not arise on account of refusal by the landlord to accept money orders which were sent after service of demand notice and also raise defenses which were available to the tenants under the Rent Act. 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the judgment and 3 (WP1799/97) order passed by the competent authority and, therefore, this court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Area (I.C. & R.) Tribunal, Bombay. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)