1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5936 OF 2007 (Dr.Babulal Harishchandra Thakre .v. Mahadeo Ekaji Umredkar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P.N. Kendurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.B. Ambilwade, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 05TH MARCH, 2008. Though the present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, from the perusal of the averments made in the petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner is only invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent finding of facts arrived by the learned Small Causes Court, Nagpur dated 8th December, 2004 thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent and by the learned Ad hoc District Judge, Nagpur dated 16th October, 2007 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Heard Shri P.N. Kendurkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri 2 K.B. Ambilwade, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Shri Kendurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have grossly erred in overlooking the evidence of the Engineer of the Corporation namely Shri Sunil Uikey. He submits that from the evidence of said Shri Sunil Uikey, it was clear that the property fell within the slum area and as such the suit instituted by the present petitioner without obtaining the permission of the competent authority under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, was itself not tenable. He submits that since the suit is without jurisdiction, the decree passed by the learned trial Court so also the judgment of the learned appellate Court are liable to be quashed and set aside. From the judgment of the learned trial Court so also the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court, it would reveal that the learned Courts below concurrently found that the present property is situated at Juni Mangalwari, Nagpur. It has been concurrently held that though the notification is placed on record to show that the area of Hatti Nala is notified as slum area, there was nothing on record to show that Juni 3 Mangalwari was notified as slum area. It could thus be seen from the evidence on record that the Courts below have come to the finding of facts that the petitioner has failed to prove that the area wherein the house of the respondent/landlord is situated was covered under any notification issued under the Slums Act. In the concurrent finding of facts, the interference would be warranted only if the findings are found to be perverse or impossible. No perversity can be found with the approach adopted by the learned Courts below. Even otherwise a person who seeks equity in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, is also expected to have an equitable conduct. In the present case, it would be seen that even on earlier occasion, the respondent was required to file Regular Civil Suit No. 318 of 1999 for recovery of the rent from the petitioner for the period from 01.08.1997 to 30.09.1997. Even thereafter the petitioner remained in arrears and as such notice was required to be sent to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not claim the notice, the respondent was required to initiate the proceedings by way of suit, which is decreed. In that view of the matter, the present petitioner is not entitled to claim any equitable relief. 4 The petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE *rrg.