: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2009 Sucha Singh Pabla & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Chanchaladevi J. Agarwal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.G. Mehta for the Applicants. Mr. A.L. Patki for Respondent Nos.2 to 8. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The application has been filed against the order dated 4th May, 2002, passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in an Obstructionists’ Notice No.8 of 1997 in R.A.E. Suit No.2870 of 1977. The judgment and order of the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court dated 24th April, 2009 passed in an Appeal No.122 of 2002 confirming the trial Court’s order is also challenged. 2. It is contended on behalf of the obstructionists that the suit property falls within an area which has been declared as slum under the Law relating to Slum in Maharashtra, 2007 (for : 2 : short “the Slum Act”). The next point raised is that the obstructionists have been issued a photo pass and, therefore, would be entitled to alternate accommodation as per the provisions of Section 3(Z) under a Slum Act. It is then submitted that the entire land on which the suit premises as well as other structures are situated has been taken over by the Central Government in view of the public notice issued by the Mumbai International Airport Private Limited. It is, therefore, submitted that once the premises are acquired by this Authority, the obstructionists would be entitled to alternate accommodation. It is also submitted that the respondent-landlord has consented not to evict the obstructionists without following due process of law and, therefore, according to the learned Advocate the decree ought not to have been executed against them. 3. In my opinion, none of these contentions raised in the application have merit. The contention that the area has been declared as slum and, therefore, the permission of the Slum Authority ought to have : 3 : been sought before filing a Suit cannot be accepted. This is because the Appellate Authority by its order dated 7th April, 1981 has allowed the Appeal filed by the respondents. The declaration that the property on which the suit premises are situated is a slum has been set aside by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, in my opinion, whether or not the obstructionists have been issued a photo pass would not be relevant once the order passed by the Competent Authority is reversed. Admittedly, the order of the Appellate Authority is in force till today as no further proceedings were taken against the order. 4. The contention that the respondent-landlord has no right to evict the obstructionists because the property has been taken over by the Airport Authority is also untenable. Both the Courts below have rightly dealt with this issue by considering the fact that under the Maharashtra Rent Act, “the landlord need not be the owner of the suit premises”. : 4 : 5. The submission that the obstructionists were in the suit premises even prior to filing of the Suit and, therefore, ought to have been given notice, must obviously be rejected. This is because it appears from the record which is available today in the Court that the written statement was filed in the ejectment suit by the obstructionist No.1, acting as a power of attorney holder of the original tenant. Obviously, therefore, the obstructionists had notice of the ejectment suit before the Small Causes Court. It appears that when evidence was led before the trial Court in this Obstructionists’ Notice, the original tenant has deposed on behalf of the obstructionists. Thus, they were fully aware that proceedings had been initiated against the tenant in the Small Causes Court. If indeed they were in occupation of the suit premises when the Suit was filed, it was their duty to defend themselves before the Competent Authority. Not having been done so, the obstructionists cannot now claim that they had no notice of the proceedings specially in view of the fact that the written statement was signed by the : 5 : obstructionist No.1. In my view the landlords have adopted the due process of law for evicting the obstructionists. 6. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 7. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the obstructionists for granting time to vacate the suit premises, the decree shall not be executed for a period of three months from today subject to the usual undertaking being furnished by all the obstructionists and all other adults residing in the suit premises to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......