: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.312 OF 2009 Harjivan Somachand Panchal ... Applicant V/s. Indrani U. Punjabi ... Respondent Mr.B.B. Pathak for Applicant Mr.R.A. Thorat for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the appellate order of the Small Causes Court. The appeal bench has reversed the findings of the trial Court and has decreed the suit. It has been held that the demand notice for payment of arrears of rent has been issued to the tenant legally. It has also further been held that the tenant has never shown his readiness and willingness to pay the rent. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the tenant-applicant that the notice was issued during the period when the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act 1975 was in force. It is submitted that in this view of the matter the notice issued by the landlord is illegal. : 2 : 3. Undisputedly, the aforesaid Act has been struck down by a judgment of the apex Court in the State of Maharashtra v/s. Kamal Sukumar Durgule & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 119. The Court has held that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution as it was violative of articles 14 an 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. While striking it down, the Supreme Court observed that the Act did not violate the provisions of Article 31(1). It was also observed that the Act did not provide for transfer of ownership of vacant lands to the State or to a Corporation nor did it vest in the State the right of the owner or occupier of the lands to recover rent or the compensation for use and occupation of such lands. 4. Thus, the notice issued by the landlord has been held to be valid. The submission, regarding the issuance of the notice being in breach of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act 1975, is untenable. 5. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. On the application of the learned advocate for the applicants, this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today subject to the usual undertakings being furnished by the applicants and all adults staying in the premises within a period of two weeks from today.