IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2009 Chandrakant Laxman Nimade ...Petitioner V/s. Pandurang Raghunath Yeram ...Respondent ...... Mr.R.O.Pathak i/b M/s.R.O.Pathak & Associates for Petitioner. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The only argument canvassed before this Court is that the suit premises were situated in slum area, for which reason, the Suit could not have proceeded. The argument clearly overlooks the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below. Both the Courts below have found that the Defendant has failed to prove the factum that the suit : 2 : premises are situated in area which has been notified as slum area. What is relevant to notice is that in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint, the description of the suit premises is given as Room No.2, Yeram Chawl, Ashok Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, P.O. J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. In the written statement while raising the question of jurisdiction of the Court, all that the Defendant has asserted is that the property has been declared as slum area under Notification DC/ENC/17 dated 26th September 1977 published in Maharashtra Government Gazette Part-I dated 6th October 1976. When the matter went for trial, the Defendant in the examination-in-chief asserted that the suit premises is situated on C.T.S.No.211 Lelewadi, Sahar Village, which has been declared as slum area. The Appellate Court has referred to the documents produced by the Petitioner which clearly indicates that the property C.T.S.No.211 of 34 to 44 have been denotified in terms of decision by the Appellate Tribunal dated 8th April 1982. The Petitioner/Defendant has failed to prove that the suit premises are situated on any other part of the property (C.T.S. No.211 other than past Nos.34 to : 3 : 44) which continues to be slum area in terms of the notification dated 26th September 1977. The Appellate Court has found as of fact that the Defendant is claiming that C.T.S. number of the suit premises is 211/34 to 44. The criticism of the Petitioner before this Court is that no such concession was made on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. The fact remains that the Petitioner is not in a position to explain as to why he applied for Certificate to be issued by the competent Authority in relation to C.T.S. No.211/34 to 44 only. Obviously, that is on the assumption that the suit premises are situated on the said portion of the property. The said document is part of Exhibit 3 collectively. As aforesaid, the Certificate issued by the Competent Authority would indicate that C.T.S. No.211/34 to 44 has been denotified in terms of decision of the Tribunal in Appeal dated 8th April 1982. No fault can be found with the said approach of the Appellate Court. The Petitioner has not offered any explanation nor has made any effort to establish the fact that the suit premises were situated on other part of C.T.S. : 4 : No.211 and not on C.T.S.No.211/34 to 44 which is not a slum area. Hence, this Petition should fail. The same is dismissed. 4. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner be granted time to vacate. That indulgence is shown on Petitioner submitting usual undertaking in this Court within two weeks from today. In addition, the Petitioner shall file similar usual undertaking of all adult family members staying along with the Petitioner in the suit premises within the same time. Time to vacate is granted till 31st May 2009 on above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.