1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3537 OF 2008. (RAMDAS SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA Vs MOHD. GHAUS MOHD. UMAR & ANR) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2008. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri K.S.Dhote for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri O.D.Jain for the respondents. 2. Advocate Dhote contends that evidence has been brought on record to show that the landlord has got three shop blocks and those three shop blocks are not at all considered by any of the Courts below. He further states that application/ suit for same purpose was earlier filed but then it was withdrawn and its effect has not been gone into. Lastly, he states that the suit premises, fall in slum area, and this aspect has also not been considered by any of the Courts. 2 3. Advocate Jain strongly opposes the petition. 4. So far as ground of appreciation of evidence is concerned, there is no material produced along with this writ petition to show that there were three shop blocks with the landlords. The Courts have concurrently, after considering the evidence found that both the brothers were having their business in one and the same shop block. The finding is not demonstrated to be perverse at all. 5. The contention that earlier suit/ application was withdrawn is again not borne out from record and even in written statement filed before the trial Court there is no such plea. During arguments Advocate Dhote has contended that there was no notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and he relies upon paragraph 6 of the judgment of this Court reported at 2003 BCR (4) 612 (Shri David K.N. Vs. Shri S.R. Chaubey (Chaturvedi). Paragraph 6 whereof does not support such argument. 3 6. Advocate Jain has stated that the issue of slum was not raised before any of the Court and notification filed is issued under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authorities Act. He states that necessary evidence or facts are not on record. 7. In these circumstances, it is apparent that in writ petition, for the first time the said issue cannot be considered. However, if the petitioners can demonstrate even before the executing Court that the premises are situated in Slum Area and therefore, protection is available to them, the executing Court can take appropriate cognizance of the matter. I, therefore, do not find that any case is made out for warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE RR.