1 crast434.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST.NO.434 OF 2010 Lata Baburao Kolar & Anr. ...Applicants vs. 1 Shrikrishna Jotiram Joshi (since deceased through L.Rs.) 1A Smt.Suman Shrikrishna Joshi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ashutosh Kulkarni for the applicants Mr.Balwant Patole for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and 1(e) CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicants who are the original defendants. The respondents filed a suit under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control)Act,1947. The suit was filed for possession under section 13 (1) (hhh) of the said Act on the ground that the local Authority has issued a notice of demolition of the suit premises on the ground that the same is in dilapidated condition. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing the written statement. The applicants denied that they were tenants of the respondents in respect of the suit premises. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court passed a decree for possession in the appeal preferred by the respondents. 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants 2 crast434.sxw and the learned counsel for the respondents. The finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court is that in his cross examination, the first applicant has admitted that she was the tenant in respect of the suit premises and was paying the rent to the respondents. A copy of the notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Council was produced on record and was admitted in evidence. There was no legal challenge to the said notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Council. The Appellate Court has found that after notice was issued by the Municipal Council, the respondent has got plans for construction of a new building sanctioned from the Municipal Council. As the first applicant admitted the relationship between the parties and as the notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Council was proved, a decree for possession has been passed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the suit premises are required for the immediate purpose of demolition. It is not possible to find fault with the impugned Judgment and Decree. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE