1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPICATION NO. 431 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2005 IN OBSTRUCTIONIST NOTICE NO. 17 OF 1999 IN RAE & R SUIT NO. 86/233 OF 1990 Premlata Vishwanath Hindlekar & Ors. ... Applicants (Org.Appellants/ (Obstructionists) Vs/ Shantabai Sakharam Morer ... Respondent (Orig.Plaintiff.) Mr.L.H.Patil,Advocate, for the applicants.. Mr. KetanA. Chothani,Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 21st April, 2010. P.C. 1. The plaintiff/respondent had filed suit No.86/233 of 1990 against the original defendant Vishwanath for eviction and possession of the suit premises on several grounds. The suit was decreed ex-parte. The attempts to get that decree set aside have failed. The plaintiff-decree holder took out execution proceedings for executing that decree for possession. Meanwhile, the original defendant- judgment debtor had died. His widow and three sons created obstruction in the 2 execution. The decree holder took out Notice No.17/99 for removal of the obstruction. After hearing parties, the Executing Court passed the order dated 3.12.2004 for removal of the obstruction. That order was challenged by the obstructionists. That appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this Revision Application by the original obstructionists. 2. Admittedly, the original defendant Vishwanath was a tenant and the decree for eviction was passed. The present revision applicants/obstructionists claim property through the original defendant. The only ground for obstruction is that the property was declared to be slum area and without obtaining necessary permission under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 decree cannot be executed. In the obstructionists application, it was stated that the suit property was declared to be slum area. However, in the affidavit in examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner No.4 - Krishna, it was contended that the suit property is a structure on CTS No.290 of Vile Parle and it has been declared as slum area. A Notification was also filed to show that whole of the CTS No.290 of Vile Parle is declared to b e the slum area. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he himself of was not aware that it was declared to be slum area, but he had come to know from his friend that the suit structure is part of Survey No.290. There is no dispute that City Survey No.290 admeasuring 763.3 sq. mtrs. has been declared as slum area 3 as per the notification dated 14.6.1977. It appears that the applicants also approached the concerned Competent Authority to get the certificate of City Survey No.290 ntified to be slum area. In response to that, by letter dated 31.5.1999, the Competent Authority informed the revision applicant No.4 that City Survey No.290 of Vile Parle has been declared as slum area, but at the same time, in para 2 of that letter, he asked the applicant No.4 to get it verified and confirmed that his structure is standing on City Survey No.290. Admittedly, no document is produced on record to show that the disputed structure is part of City Survey No.290. In view of this, both the Courts below came to conclusion that the obstructionists had failed to prove that the disputed structure in respect of which the decree has been passed is part of City Survey No.290 which is declared to be slum area. As they failed to prove that the suit property is in the slum area, the obstruction came to be dismissed. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I find no fault, illegality or irregularity in the findings of both the Courts below. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)