1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5408/2007 (Dr. Smt. Priyali Takale Vs. Shankarlal Sunderlal Gandhi) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Purohit, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 27 th NOVEMBER, 2008. The petitioner is a tenant. A suit was filed by the respondents/landlords seeking ejectment and possession on the ground of non-payment of rent by the defendant/tenant. Since the defendant had not paid the rent to the landlords from 1/3/1991 to 31/12/1991 (barring a short intervening period), the plaintiffs served a registered notice dated 14/9/2001 calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent. Since the rent was not paid, a suit was instituted. The defendant did not deposit arrears of rent within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons. The defendant denied the claim of the landlords and also denied that she was in arrears of rent. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs had received the rent till July 2002 by cheques but, had still instituted 2 a false suit for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs had not encashed the cheques sent by the defendant. The Court of Small Causes, Nagpur as well as the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the material evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the defendant was in arrears of rent and her tenancy was liable to be forfeited for non-payment of rent in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The Courts have negatived the plea of the defendant that the suit house falls within the slum area and, therefore, under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973, the permission of the competent authority was necessary before institution of the suit. Both the judgments are impugned in the instant petition. I have perused the impugned judgments as also the evidence tendered by the parties on record. I have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Both the Courts have recorded the finding of fact that the petitioner had failed to prove, by cogent and convincing evidence, that the suit house was situated in a slum area. The finding of fact cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the same is not found to be perverse. Both the Courts also came to a conclusion 3 on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, that the petitioner had not tendered the rent from 14/7/2007 and was also in arrears of rent for some period with effect from March, 1991. Since the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent before the Small Causes Court within the stipulated period, the Courts held that the respondents were entitled to a decree of ejectment and possession in view of the non-payment of rent by the petitioner- tenant. There is hardly any scope for interference with the findings recorded by both the Courts in view of the limited jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP