1 CRA No.1/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 of 2011 Mahommed Samshadali Abdul Sattar ... Applicant versus (i) Smt. Kusumben Kantilal Shah(deceased) (ii)Shri Hitesh Pannalal Shah (iii)Smt Kshama Haresh Mehta (iv)Shri Haresh Vanmalidas Shah (v)Shri Praful Anubhai Shah (vi)Shri Punita Haresh Mehta ... Respondents ... Mr. H.P. Pandey for the applicant Mr.Sandeep M. Kane for respondent nos.1 to 6 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 19th January 2011. P.C. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15 November 2010 passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court confirming a decree for eviction passed by the trial Judge. 2 CRA No.1/11 2. Applicant is a tenant and respondents are the landlords. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the landlords requiring them to demolish the suit premises as they were dilapidated and dangerous to live in. The respondents accordingly called upon the tenants to vacate the suit premises and on their failure to do so filed a suit for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellate bench of the Small Causes Court confirmed the decree. That decision is impugned in this revision application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the duty of the landlord of keeping the suit premises in tenantable repairs and he cannot evict the tenant for his own neglect of not keeping the suit premises in tenantable repairs and allowing them to fall in a dilapidated condition. Buildings may become dilapidated by reason of its age and by natural forces. The duty of a landlord to keep the premises in tenantable repairs cannot be interpreted to mean that the landlord is required to repair the building which is beyond repairs and has become dangerous to live in. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that landlord is required to provide alternative premises to the tenants. Where a decree is sought under section 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, there is no requirement of providing of an alternative accommodation to the tenant as in case of a decree under section 16(1)(i). Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provisions of section 16(1) (k) are unconstitutional and the reference may be made to a larger bench. I see no reason to make such a reference. A court is required to presume a statute to be constitutional unless otherwise proved. In any 3 CRA No.1/11 event, when a constitutional validity of section 16(1)(k) is not specifically challenged a reference cannot be made merely on the basis when oral submission of the counsel that section is unconstitutional. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in order to enable the applicant to challenge this order, some time may be granted to him. The decree for eviction shall not be executed for a period of four weeks. (D.G.KARNIK, J)