1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2009 (Mst. Kishkundabai wd/o K.P. Apparao Naidu & Ors. vs. Abdul Rashid s/o Abdul Karim) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 13, 2010. Heard finally Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner – tenant filed two documents at Exhs. 68 and 69 before Small Causes Court and on the basis of those documents, a finding that suit house is situated in slum area was delivered by Small Causes Court. The suit was, therefore, decreed. The respondent – landlord then filed an appeal and in that appeal, after considering very same documents, a finding was delivered that number of house property given in these documents is different than the suit house. The appeal was, therefore, allowed. Before this Court, the said finding is challenged by contending that the finding is perverse. The learned counsel contends that House No. 559 was old number while its new number is 713/7. Attention is invited to additional documents filed along with application for amendment bearing Civl Application No. 2 1651/2010 for said purpose. The list of house falling in slum area has also been pressed into service by inviting attention to map and notification and showing boundaries of the slum area. Shri Desphande, learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff has opposed the prayer for amendment. He points out that slum authority has issued him a certificate on 21.07.2010 showing that House No. 713/7 (suit house) does not fall in slum area. He further states that there is absolutely no justification for making amendment application at belated stage and filing documents with it. He states that suit was filed by the respondent – landlord in 1988 after obtaining permission from Rent Control Authorities. According to him, this is nothing but harassment of the respondent. The suit house is having No. 713/7. Project Director (Slum) for Nagpur Municipal Corporation has issued certificate on 27.08.2009 to the petitioner that it falls in slum area. On 21.07.2010, the same authority has issued a certificate to the contrary to present respondent. The certificate prima facie appears to be signed by the same officer as Project Director. The trial Court has accepted the certificate and delivered finding in favour of the petitioner and appellate Court has only because of difference in house number, delivered a contrary finding. In this situation, I am inclined to give the petitioners an opportunity to substantiate their contention that house is situated in 3 slum area. However, the petitioners already had such an opportunity and they should have produced all documents to substantiate that contention. Hence, for such delay, the respondent is compensated by directing the petitioners to pay to the respondent cost of Rs.20,000/- by 31.08.2010. If the costs are so paid, the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.02.2009 delivered by Ad-hoc District Judge- 5, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1998 shall stand quashed and set aside. The said Court shall permit the parties before it to produce relevant documents on record and thereafter shall proceed to find out whether the suit is located in slum area or not. Depending upon that adjudication, decree shall be passed. Regular Civil Appeal No. 304 of 1998 is restored back to the file of Ad-hoc District Judge- 5, Nagpur only for that purpose. The parties to appear before said Court on 31.08.2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Looking to the fact that Civil Suit was filed in 1988, the appellate Court shall, therefore, decide the proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE *GS.