1 Cra-536.08 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2008 Union of India & Another. .. Applicants Vs Shri Ahmed Haji Omar, since deceased through his legal heirs :- (a) Zafar Satar Omar & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri S.R. Rajguru i/b Shri Y.S. Bhatt for the Applicants. Shri Madhav Jamdar for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants, who are Union of India and Defence Estate Officer. The Respondents are legal representatives of the original Plaintiff and the Revision Applicants are the original Defendants. 2. The suit property was let out by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant at monthly rent of Rs.200/-. The suit property is a Bungalow more particularly described in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. Notice of demand dated 27th October, 1979 was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants as the Defendants were in arrears of rent from 1st December, 1970. According 2 Cra-536.08 to the Plaintiff, after service of the notice of demand, the arrears demanded were not tendered and, therefore, the suit was filed for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1947” ). The suit proceeded as ex parte. The Trial Court passed a decree for possession. 3. An appeal was preferred by the Revision Applicants before the District Court. The District Court has confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the land below the suit bungalow was held by the predecessors of the Plaintiff on the old grant tenure. On 26th November, 1970, the Union of India resumed the land by issuing notice to the predecessors of the Respondents in Revision Application. He pointed out that the predecessors of the Respondents filed a suit for declaration challenging the notice of resumption of the land and claimed declaration that the notice was illegal and ultra-vires. The suit was decreed and the notice of resumption was held to be illegal. The decree was confirmed by the District Court in the appeal and both the decrees were confirmed by this Court. He has placed reliance on the order dated 4th August, 1988 passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition. He submitted that the decree passed in favour of the predecessors of the Respondents by which the resumption notice was held to be illegal and ultra vires has merged with the order of the Apex 3 Cra-536.08 Court dated 4th August, 1988. He submitted that in view of the merger, now it cannot be said that the notice of resumption is illegal and ultra vires and, therefore, a decree for possession in respect of the suit bungalow could not have been passed in favour of the Respondents as the land below the suit bungalow stands resumed by the Union of India. His submission is that in view of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, the decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the District Court stands vitiated. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. From the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is apparent that the suit premises subject matter of the present suit is a bungalow and not the land. The said bungalow is situated on the land which, according to the Applicants, has vested in the Union of India. 6. According to the case of the Applicants, the land was leased to one Mr. Haji Oomar in the year 1928. In short, the case of the Applicants is that the Union of India was the owner of the land below the suit premises. Notice of resumption was issued on 26th November, 1970 by the Union of India. The notice was challenged by the original Plaintiff by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 1097 of 1972. The suit was decreed by holding that the notice was illegal and was of no consequence. The decree was confirmed in the appeal preferred by the Union of India before the District Court. The Second Appeal No. 561 of 1985 filed by the Union of India was summarily dismissed by this Court. Now reliance has been placed on the order dated 4 Cra-536.08 4th August, 1988 passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Union of India for challenging the aforesaid declaratory decree. The order of the Apex Court reads thus: - “Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would seek dispossession of the respondent- occupants from the properties involved in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suits. In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High Court which would tend to defeat the remedies sought would not stand in its way. On such stance of the Union of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.” 7. Apart from the fact that the Apex Court has not disturbed the declaratory decree, the statement of the learned Solicitor General of India has been recorded that the Union of India will seek dispossession of the occupants in accordance with law and if need be through a Civil Court by filing the suits. Thus, for resuming the land below the suit premises, the Union of India will have to either file a suit or seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As of today, admittedly, the said remedy has not been adopted by the Applicants. 8. There is no dispute that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the Respondent and the 1st Applicant in respect of the suit premises. There is no dispute regarding the service of the notice of demand and the fact that the Applicants were in arrears of rent for more 5 Cra-536.08 than six months on the date of the notice. There is no compliance with the demand notice by the Applicants. Therefore, the Trial Court has passed the decree for possession on the ground of default which has been confirmed by the District Court. There is absolutely no error in the concurrent decrees passed by the Courts below. 9. The decrees passed by the Courts below do not prevent the Applicants from adopting proceedings in accordance with the order of the Apex Court dated 4th August, 1988. Even if the decree for possession is executed, the Applicants can always adopt appropriate remedy in terms of the order of the Apex Court. 10. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Revision Application is rejected. No orders as to costs. 11. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of three months from today. (A.S.OKA, J)