1 (CRA398.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2011 Ramjanak Jokhan Tiwari .... Applicant. V/s Gulabji Mahabal Tiwari and others ..... Respondents. Mr. R.G. Megh i/b Mr. R.O. Pathak for the Applicant. Mr. Jaydeep S. Deo for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 22nd June, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. 2. Applicant is the original Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.1 is the original landlord. Landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of subletting against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The writ of summons was served in 1998. However, in spite of service of writ of summons, Defendants did not appear and, therefore, ex parte decree was passed on 27/7/1998. Thereafter, Defendant No.2, 2 (CRA398.11) through his Power of Attorney filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said application was rejected. Appeal which was filed against the said order was also rejected. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Courts below, Defendant No.2 has filed this Civil Revision Application. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant that the writ of summons was not served. It is submitted that no opportunity was given to the applicant to lead evidence. It is submitted that the property in question is a slum and, therefore, the Court did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. It is submitted that unless the landlord establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant, decree under the provisions of Rent Act cannot be passed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 has invited my attention to the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It is submitted that both the Courts, after going through the evidence on record, held that writ of summons was served on Defendant No.2. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel 3 (CRA398.11) appearing on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted. There is evidence on record which indicates that the applicant was served with the writ of summons and in spite of that he remained absent and did not file his appearance. Application for setting aside the ex parte decree has been filed almost after 9 years. Hence, it will not be possible to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)