1 (CRA 1066 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1066 OF 2010 Smt.Indradevi Shivbaran Mishra ...Applicant Vs. Smt. Bhanumati Barkhulal since deceased and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.K.K. Pandey for Applicant Mr.S.B. Amin and Ms. Mukta S. Godse for Respondents No.2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 29th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Respondents. 2. The Applicant is the original Defendant and the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiffs and the Defendant”.) 3. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the Defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and additions and alterations. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the Plaintiffs had established that the Defendant was in arrears of rent and had not paid the 2 (CRA 1066 of 2010) arrears within one month after the service of demand notice. This order was also confirmed in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has submitted that prior to the issuance of demand notice by the landlords, the Applicant has paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards rent and, therefore, no amount was due and payable to the landlords. It was contended that no cause of action, therefore, had accrued in favour of the landlords to file the suit since no amount was due and payable and for that reason, the Defendant-Tenant did not pay the amount as demanded after the notice was issued by the landlords. Secondly, it was contended that the Plaintiffs' son had admitted this fact in his cross examination. Thirdly, it was contended that he was regularly depositing the amount in the Court during the pendency of the trial and appeal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents-landlords submitted that no such admission was given by the Plaintiffs' son. She invited my attention to the cross examination of the Plaintiffs' son. She submitted that only a suggestion was made to him. However, the suggestion was denied by him. She submitted that there was no proof of payment of the said amount to the Plaintiffs prior to the issuance 3 (CRA 1066 of 2010) of demand notice. She further submitted that the tenant had not deposited any amount during the pendency of the trial or the appeal. She submitted that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below and, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders passed by both the Lower Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondents. Perusal of the cross examination of the Plaintiffs' son clearly shows that a specific suggestion which was made by the Defendant's advocate was denied by the Plaintiffs' son. It has not been established that the amount was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs prior to filing of the suit. Both the Courts, therefore, in my view, have correctly held that the Plaintiffs have established that the Defendant was in arrears of rent and he is liable to be evicted. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Applicant that the suit premises are part of the slum and without obtaining permission from the competent authority, suit could not have been filed. Both the Courts, however, have held that the evidence led by the Defendant no.2 on this point is not sufficient to hold that the suit premises are located in slum area. 4 (CRA 1066 of 2010) Hence, there is no substance in the said submissions. 7. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Three months' time is given to the Applicant to vacate the premises provided that she gives an undertaking in the usual form within two weeks. Civil Revision Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)