1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.460 OF 1992 Mr. Shankar Vithoba Patil and ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Ramji Premji Jhaveri. ..Respondent. Mr.V.A. Thorat with R.,A.Thorat and P.S.Thorat for the Appellants. Mr.P.M. Haridas i/by P.N.Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2009 PC : 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court confirming the order for eviction of the appellant passed by the trial court. The only contention urged before us is that by demand notice dated 14.7.1978 the rent and permitted increases were demanded and therefore, case was covered by Section 12(3)(b) and not 2 under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. However, perusal of the record shown that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 12(3)(b) or 12(3)(a) was raised but not in relation to the demand notice by landlord demanding the rent with permissible permitted increases. Whether because of the demand notice, the case would have been covered under Section 12(3)(a) or 12(3)(b) is not a pure question of law. In our opinion, this is not the proper forum Sto raise such plea. Appeal is therefore rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that for a period of six weeks from today, the landlord will not put the decree of eviction to execution. Statement accepted. 3. Civil Application No.96 of 2008 is accordingly disposed off. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) ( R.S.MOHITE, J.) 3