IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 185 OF 1996 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 185 OF 1996 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 185 OF 1996 Shri Ratansingh Dayal Singh since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives Satwant Kaur & Ors. ...Appellants (Orig.Petitioner/ Defendant) V/s. Shri Shakri B. Ajimal & Anr. ...Respondents (Orig.Respondent/ Plaintiff) Mr.R.A. Thorat for the Appellants. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9th July, 1996 in Writ Petition No.3407 of 1996. By that writ petition, the petitioner-tenant had challenged the order of the appellate court holding that the appellant has committed default in payment of rent and therefore, decree of eviction was passed against him. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The learned Single Judge has observed in his order that the only - 2 - point argued before him was that the land has been declared as vacant and, therefore, the tenant was not required to pay rent to the landlord. The learned Single Judge has observed that according to the petitioner, the land was declared as vacant land in 1975 whereas the tenant has admitted in evidence that the rent was not paid from year 1975. It was contended before us that the finding recorded by the appellate court that the demand notice was already served on the tenant, is not correct. 2. We have perused the record. The appellate court has considered the evidence on record and recorded the finding of fact that the demand notice was served on the tenant. So far as declaration of vacant land and the appellant’s liability for payment of rent is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that even before the land was declared as vacant land, the tenant was not paying rent and was in default. Taking an overall view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the - 3 - learned Single Judge. 3. Appeal is disposed of. 4. At the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is directed that decree of eviction shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today subject to the condition that within a period of two weeks from today, the appellant files an undertaking in this court undertaking to handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landloard after eight weeks, if he fails to secure an order from the competent court, either staying the execution or setting aside the decree of eviction within the period of eight weeks. In case undertaking is not filed within two weeks, the decree holder shall be free to execute the decree immediately. 5. In view of the order passed in appeal, Civil Application No.5840/1996 does not survive and it is disposed of. - 4 - (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)