1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2504/1991 Sarjerao Dagdu Kunjir PETITIONER VS. Sayyad Fakir Mohammad Hasan RESPONDENT Mr.Sanjay Kshirsagar advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.G.Ketkar ,advocate for the respondent no.2 & 3 Mr.P.M.Mengane for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.M.Khanwilkar,J. Date : 15/7/2008 P.C. 1] This writ petition filed by the tenant takes exception to the concurrent view taken by the two courts below in passing eviction decree against the tenant in respect of suit premises situated in house no.324,Yerwada ,Pune . According to the respondent /landlord the petitioner was inducted as monthly tenant on rent of Rs.15/- in respect of room admeasuring 10' x 15' .The landlord asserted that inspite of demand notice petitioner failed and neglected to pay arrears of rent .As a result , the landlord had no option but to institute 2 the suit for eviction on the ground of default against the tenant. The trial court as well as appellate court on analysing the evidence on record decreed the suit in favour of the landlord and ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit premises. 2] The first argument canvassed before this court is that the finding reached by the two courts below on the factum of suit property situated in slum area cannot be sustained . To consider this contention we shall straightway advert to the opinion recorded by the court below with regard to this plea of the petitioner /tenant. Amongst others , the trial court in para 8 of the impugned judgment has taken in to account all the relevant material to hold that the petitioner/tenant failed to establish the fact that the suit premises in house no.324 were in fact situated on portion of land bearing city survey no.1933 A which has been declared as slum area. The trial court has observed as follows in para 8:- '' It is the contention of the defendant that the room in suit or house no.324 stands on survey no.1933 -A of Mouje Yeravada and this survey no.1933 A has been included in slum area .Exh.66 is the copy of the Gazette Notification. It shows that area of survey no.1933- A bounded by Jail Road ,towards east; areas of survey no.1933 towards westsurvey no.7,8-A and 8-B ; towards south and the remaining land of Survey no.1933 ; and Veer Netaji High School towards north .So we have to examine whether the room in suit stands on survey no.1933-A as described in this notification.The map 3 of survey no.1933-A alongwith the adjoining lands has not been filed by either of the parties. The Defendant admits that Veer Netaji High School is towards south of house no.324 .He also admits that there are 4 lanes between the school and the house nos.324 ,which makes it clear that the school is at some distance from house no.324 and he lsays that the school is at the distance of 50 paces from the suit room. The wife of defendant also admits that Netaji High School is towards the south of the shop. This means that the land under the room in suit does not answer the description of the area which has been declared as slum area.To say that survey no.1333 -A has been declared as slum area is different from claiming that house no.324 or room in suit stands on a land which is declared as a slum area . The description given in the notification is to be strictly applied as it affects the rights of the parties. From the entries in the property register which is at Exh.65 it appears that survey no.1933 was a big plot and as per the divisions which took place from time to time it was divided into sub numbers 1933-A to 1933 F and on no part of it the name of plaintiff has been recorded even as occupier .'' 3] This view has been confirmed by the appellate court on reappreciation of the entire material on record. After hearing counsel for the parties , I have no hesitation in upholding the concurrent view taken by the two courts below on this issue . No material has been brought to my notice which has been overlooked by the court below so as to criticize the impugned judgment being perverse or manifestly wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to establish the fact that the suit premises situated in house no.324 were located on land which has been declared as slum area .It is not in dispute that the city 4 survey no.1933 -A is a big plot of land and only portion thereof has been declared as slum area . Having failed to establish the material facts , the issue has been rightly answered by the court below against the petitioner . 3] The next argument canvassed before this court is that the petitioner was not the tenant of the respondent but it is the petitioner' s wife who was the real tenant . Even this aspect has been carefully considered by the courts below keeping in mind the evidence on record. The appellate court in para 15 of its judgment has sumed up the position as follows. '' Now , the question which crops us for my determination in the instant matter is as to whether the original defendant /the appellant is the tenant of the suit premises or the wife of the original defendant/the appellant is the tenant of the suit premises , as alleged. In this respect ,it requires to be noted that the original defendant the appellant has himself admitted in his written statement (Exh.13 ) that previously he was tenant of the suit premises since 1.7.1973 his wife had become tenant of the suit premises. But surprisingly enough, it is found that no documentary evidence is produced on record in order to show the same. It has come in the evidence that the original plaintiff/the respondent used to issue rent receipts to the original defendant / the appellant in respect of the suit premises. In view of this fact, it was necessary for the original defendant / appellant to have shown the rent receipts were issued in the name of his wife since 1.7.1973. But surprisingly enough,it is found that the original defendant/the appellant and his wife failed to produce on record any such rent receipt . On the contrary,it has been 5 stated by the wife of the original defendant /the appellant that the original plaintiff/the respondent had issued rent receipts in her name but the same were taken away by a person from Tahasildar's office. Except her bare version on this point,there is nothing on record to show the same. In view of this fact,it has to be said that the said defence is nothing but an afterthought of the original defendant /the appellant. I am,therefore,not at all inclined to believe the same.'' 4] Even this finding is founded on the material on record. It cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly wrong . As no other contention is raised before this Court , the petition is devoid of merits . 5] Hence Petition is dismissed with costs. (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)