hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 501 OF 2011 Shivshankar Gokul Singh ... Applicant Versus Brijraj Sitaram Singh and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. D.R. Singh i/by R.B. Singh & Associates, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Ajay Jaiswal i/by Mr. Devendra Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S. OKA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicant. 2. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction against the applicant on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement and commission of the acts contrary to the provisions of clause (o) of section 108 of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882. The trial Court decreed the suit on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fife requirement. The trial court negatived the ground of permanent structure and the commission 1 hvn of acts contrary to clause (o) of section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. An appeal was preferred by the applicant tenant before the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. There was a cross objection preferred by the respondent. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed and the cross objection was allowed by passing the decree even on the ground of clause (o) of section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that by a notification under section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), property bearing C.T.S. No. 354 (part) along with C.T.S. Nos. 354/1 to 354/101 were declared as a slum area. The submission is that even according to the case of respondent, the chawl in which suit premises is situated, is on the land bearing C.T.S. No. 354 (p). He submits that therefore, the burden was on the respondent landlord to show that the land below the chawl in which suit premises is situated, is not declared as a slum area. He submits that the appellate Court has wrongly put the burden on the applicant to prove that the suit premises was situated in the slum area. He relied upon decision 2 hvn of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani & Ors. (AIR 1009 Supreme Court 1499) in support of his contention based on the burden of proof. He also invited the attention of the court to the order dated 30/12/1989 passed by the Deputy Collector (ENC) & C.A. Borivali. He submitted that the said order shows that even according to respondents, the suit premises was situated in a slum area. He also relied upon the evidence of one Jyoti Deshpande, Naib Tahsildar working in the office of Deputy Collector, Malad, Mumbai who was examined by the applicants. 4. I have considered the submissions. The only challenge to the decree passed by the Courts below is on the ground that the suit premises is situated on the land which is declared as a slum area under the said Act. The respondent has disputed the contention that the land on which the chawl in which the suit premises is situated is on that part of C.T.S. No. 354 which is declared as a slum area. Notification under section 4 of the Slum Act declares "C.T.S. No. 354(pt) and C.T.S. Nos. 354/1 to 101" as a slum area. Thus, what is brought on record is that the chawl in which the suit premises is situated is on a part of C.T.S. No. 354 and that a particular part of C.T.S. No. 354 has been declared as a 3 hvn slum area. The area of the portion which is declared as the slum is described in the notification as admeasuring 8347.2 sq. mtrs. The applicant examined the witness Mrs. Jyoti Deshpande, Naib Tahsildar in support of the aforesaid contention. A clear admission given by the said witness examined by the applicant himself is that she was not in a position to tell whether any part out of the land bearing C.T.S. No. 354 has remained to be declared as a slum. The witness admitted that some portion of C.T.S. No. 354 was deleted in the year 1982. It is pertinent to note that the notification relied upon by the applicant is published on 31st May, 1979. Thus, the factual position admitted by Naib Tahsildar examined by the applicant is that a part of C.T.S. No. 354 was deleted from the notification in the year 1982. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that she was not in a position to tell the total area of entire CTS No. 354. In the cross examination, she specifically admitted that she is not in a position to tell whether the suit chawl is declared as slum area or not. She admitted in the cross examination that the entire CTS No. 354 was not declared as a slum but only a part thereof was declared as a slum. 5. To prove that the land below chawl in which the suit premises 4 hvn is situated was declared as a slum, the applicant examined the aforesaid witness who was working as a Naib Tahsildar in the concerned department of the State Government. The witness examined by the applicant who could have thrown light on the factual aspects has admitted that she is unable to tell whether the chawl in which the suit premises is situated was on the declared slum area. She also admitted that the entire CTS No. 354 is not declared as the slum area. Thus, the evidence of the said witness examined by the applicant himself shows that the applicant failed to discharge the burden to show that that the suit premises is on that part of CTS no. 354 which is declared as a slum area. The respondent was not expected to prove the negative that the chawl is not situated on the slum area. The appellate Court has, therefore, rightly put the burden on the applicant to prove that the chawl was on the slum area and has held that the said burden has not been discharged. The order dated 30.12.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector does not help both the parties as the said order decides nothing except for recording the statement of the respondent that the suit premises is not situated on the slum area. 5 hvn 6. Thus the finding of fact recorded on the basis of evidence on record is that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the chawl in which suit premises is situated is on a land which is declared as a slum area. There is no other point argued in the revision application. Hence, revision application stands dismissed. (A.S. OKA,J.) 6