IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.397 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.397 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.397 OF 2007. Venkappa Annu Kotian. ..Petitioner. since deceased through Smt.Kamala Venkappa kotian and Ors. V/s. Smt Lilavati Krishna Pujari ..Respondent. Mr A. V.Anturkar i/b J. K. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr H.S.S.Murthy for the Respondent. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr Anturkar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the finding that the suit property being in slum, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are not applicable, appears to be reasonable and proper. He, therefore, sought to withdraw the suit in view of the specific finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the present applicant-plaintiff has no protection under the Bombay Rent Act for the reasons recorded therein. 3. The prayer made for the withdrawal aof the suit is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Having heard both sides, the sweep of the impugned order is nothing but an adverse finding running counter to the interest of the plaintiff who has been held to be a tenant not protected under the Bombay Rent Act. If the applicant-plaintiff wants to resort any other remedy, other than the remedy under the Bombay Rent Act, no one can stop him from doing so. The findings recorded in the suit cannot come in his way to resort to any other remedy, as such, it is not necessary to grant permission for withdrawal of the suit. Hence, the prayer for withdrawal of the suit is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE