1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 289 OF 2009 Smt.Vijaya Vinayak Kapare ... Applicant v/s M/s.Ambaji Constructions ... Respondent Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar i/by Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the applicant. Mr.R.A.Thorat i/by Mr.P.B.Gujar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The present civil revision application has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Satara, in an appeal filed under the Small Causes Court Act. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the applicant on the ground that the suit premises were required for demolition in view of the notice issued by the Satara Municipal Council. This notice was issued under Section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 on 2 16.8.2003 and thereafter during the pendency of the suit another notice was issued on 20.7.2005. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that, the respondent had demolished a certain wall of the structure which caused it to be in a dilapidated condition. The Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court and has decreed the suit. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is extremely old and, therefore, she should be permitted to continue in the suit premises during her life time. On merits, he submits, the plaintiff has not made out any case for evicting the applicant. According to him, the Trial Court’s order is a well considered order and, therefore, ought not to have been disturbed by the Appellate Court. He further submits that the property is not in a dilapidated condition requiring it to be demolished and it is only because the Municipal Council acted at the behest of the respondent that the notices were issued for demolition of the structure. 4. These submissions of the learned advocate are untenable. There are no pleadings on record in the written statement to indicate that the Municipal Council had acted 3 malafide while issuing the notices for demolition. The learned advocate has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish malafides which should have been accepted by the Appellate Court. It is now well settled that no amount of evidence will justify the lack of pleading on a particular issue. Therefore this submission is unsustainable. 5. In the case of Manohar Prabhumal Rajpal v/s Satara City Municipal Corporation & anr., reported in 1992 Mah. RCJ 302, this Court has observed that when the notice is issued under Section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, as in the present case, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the local authority empowered under the statute. This Court has observed that the Civil Court cannot itself examine the question whether the premises are required for the immediate demolition as ordered by the local authority. This judgment, in my opinion, is applicable squarely to the facts in the present case. 6. During the pendency of the civil revision application, on this Court’s suggestion, the respondent had offered the applicant alternate premises at various locations for her to live during her life time. However, the applicant is not 4 willing to accept any of those premises and has filed an affidavit stating that she should be permitted to continue to reside in the suit premises. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision application is dismissed. ..... 5