KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.345 OF 2009 Shridhar A.Shetty (since deceased) & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Indira Rani through her C.A. Uggarsen Nandlal Punjabi ..Respondents ---- Mr. B. B. Pathak for the petitioners. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the respondents. ---- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J DATE : 25/8/2010 P. C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original defendants/tenants. The respondent is the landlady-plaintiff. Notice of demand of arrears of rent was issued by the respondent/plaintiff on 13.9.1977 where arrears demanded were for a period of more than six months. Notice was admittedly served to the petitioners. Thereafter a suit for possession was filed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to KJ 2 “as the said Act”). The trial Court decreed the suit and the Appeal Bench of the court of Small Causes has confirmed the decree for possession. 2 The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that on the date on which suit notice was issued, the provisions of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands Act, 1975 were applicable to the suit premises and therefore, the suit notice itself was illegal. He submitted that a fresh notice was not issued by the respondent- landlady. The 2nd contention is that the land below the suit premises has been declared as a slum. The suit was filed without taking prior permission of the competent authority. The 3rd contention is that the petitioner has always shown readiness and willingness to pay the standard rent. 3 I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, notice of demand by which a demand was made for arrears of rent for more than six months was served to the petitioner. The petitioner did not tender the rent demanded within the statutory period. The KJ 3 petitioner did not deposit the said amount in the application for fixing of standard rent which was allegedly pending on that date. The petitioner did not move the Court for fixing the interim rent. Therefore, there was no choice for the Courts below but to pass a decree for possession. 4 As far as the applicability of the provisions of Vacant Lands Act is concerned, the said enactment was declared as ultravires the Constitution of India by this Court and the decision of this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court. Therefore, notice of demand cannot be said to be illegal. 5 As far as contention regarding declaration of slum is concerned, there is a finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court that the declaration of slum by this Court was stayed in a writ petition. 6 In the circumstances, it is not possible to find fault with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Civil KJ 4 Revision Application is accordingly rejected. On the prayer made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today subject to condition that the petitioners will not create any third party rights or will not part with possession. (JUDGE)