: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2009 Jagannath Shantaram Gurav ... Applicant V/s. Haribhau Rama Shelke ... Respondent a/w CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2009 Atmaram Ganpat Shinde ... Applicant V/s. Haribhau Rama Shelke ... Respondent Mr.K.K. Pandey for Applicant Ms.Anjali Helekar for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2009 P.C.: 1. These applications have been preferred for challenging the decree passed by the Small Causes Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. The respondent herein had sought eviction of the applicants from their respective premises on the ground that they were willful defaulters in payment of rent and that they had carried out structural additions and alterations of a permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. : 2 : 2. Both the Courts below have upheld the contention of the plaintiff and have concurrently held that the defendants were in arrears of rent. Besides they have also held that the plaintiff had proved that structural additions and alterations of a permanent nature had been carried out by the defendants. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the area has been declared a slum and therefore the plaintiff was required to obtain the consent of the slum authorities to file a suit for recovery of rent and eviction from the premises. It is further submitted that once the applicants have been issued photopasses they become protected occupiers and are not liable to be evicted except under 3(z)(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. 4. The first contention that there is no consent given by the slum authority is negated by the fact that such consent was furnished on 2.11.1989. It is only thereafter that the suit has been filed in 1993. The other contention with respect to the applicants being protected occupants because they are photopass holders and therefore, not liable to be evicted cannot be sustained. The liability to pay rent to the landlord continues even in respect of a declaration of the area as a slum would not necessarily mean that the government becomes the owner of the land and that the landlord has no right to recover rent or seek eviction of his tenant. Both the courts below have in my opinion rightly held that the suit must be decreed. 5. Hence, Civil Revision Applications are dismissed.