1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.506 OF 2008 Shri Dayaram Vallabhi Gohil .... Applicants since deceased through heirs & Lrs Smt.Geeta Harakhchand Dedhia & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhagwandas Narottamdas .... Respondents Vajani & Ors. Mr. M.S. Karnik, Advocate for Applicants. Mrs. Indrayani Koparkar, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 16th September, 2008 P.C. 1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of eviction suit filed by the respondent – landlord under Section 13(1)(hhh) of The Bombay Rent, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was decreed on 27th February,1996. The revision applicant who is the tenant preferred an appeal from the decree to the District Court. That appeal came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 23rd June,2003. 2. The suit premises is one room admeasuring 15' x 15' on the ground floor of Municipal house No.4262, situate at Panchavati, Nashik. The building in which the suit premises are situate was 150 years old and had become 2 unsuitable for habitation. The Southern portion of the building had become dangerous and was likely to cause public nuisance. Therefore, the residents in the locality filed complaint with Nashik Municipal Corporation. Then the Officers of the Corporation inspected the building and issued notice in the year 1984-1985 to the landlord as also the tenants to pull down the dangerous portion of the house. The tenants resisted the notice. However the Corporation demolished part of the building. Later, the Corporation issued another notice dated 8th October,1993 after inspecting the remaining part of the building and called upon the landlord to pull down the entire building immediately. Since the tenants were not co-operating, the landlord issued notice dated 19th October, 1993 calling upon them to handover their respective tenements. Thereafter the instant suit was filed against the revision-applicant. 3. The revision- applicant filed written statement and alleged that the landlord, in collusion with the officers of Nashik Municipal Corporation, had caused false notices issued to the tenants. He denied that house No.4202 is 150 years old and not fit for habitation. 4. At the trial, the landlord examined himself and an officer of Nashik Municipal Corporation. The revision- applicant did not step into the witness box to give evidence. He, however, cross-examined the landlord's 3 witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence before it, the trial Court decreed the suit. The contention of the revision applicant before the appellate Court as well as this Court is that the suit premises have been standing without any damage till date. This fact is enough to establish that the notices issued by Nashik Municipal Corporation are false. The appellate Court has noted that the entire tenor of defence in cross-examination is that the condition of the building has deteriorated because the landlord failed to carry out timely repairs. He has not brought any evidence before the Court to establish that the condition of the building is sound and same is not required to be pulled down. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the revision-applicant that further time has elapsed since the date of the eviction decree and the suit premises have been standing at site without any damage to it. Therefore, the decree of eviction passed in the suit under Section 13(1)(hhh) of The Bombay Rent, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 deserves to be set aside. 6. As rightly observed by the lower appellate Court, there is no evidence whatsoever brought before the Court by the revision-applicant as regards the stability of the suit premises. He wants the Court to draw an inference as regards the stability of the suit premises merely because 4 the suit premises has not come down till date. As against this, the landlord has led the evidence of an Officer of Nasik Municipal Corporation who had inspected the premises before issuing notice. There is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. Further, it is undisputed that the entire building except for the suit premises stands demolished. In these circumstances, the decision of the lower appellate Court cannot be disturbed. Hence, the order. O R D E R The Civil Revision Application is dismissed with costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J)