- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 489 OF 2007 Mr. Chogmal Santokji Rawal ... Applicant Vs. Mr. Maherwan N. Karbhari & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for applicant. Mr. B. S. Pandey i/b S. U. Pandey, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 2, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents. This is tenant’s revision under the Bombay Rent Act. Both the Courts below concurrently passed decree of eviction on the ground of the change of user. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant made only submission that after institution of the suit for eviction by the respondent, notification under section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 was published in the Government Gazette. He further submitted that applicant/defendant has specifically contended about notification in his written statement. According to him, the trial Court has considered this issue wrongly and the appellate Court in spite of - 2 - specific contention in the appeal memo, did not touch this aspect. I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, in view of the provisions of section 22(1) of the said Act. Under section 22(1)(a) what is prohibited is institution of suit after issuance of notification, declaring any particular area as a slum, without previous permission and under section 22(1)(b) of the said Act execution cannot be instituted without obtaining previous permission in writing from the competent authority. Thus, suit having been instituted prior to institution of said notification, bar under section 22(1)(a) is not applicable. So far as bar under section 22(1)(b) of the said Act is concerned, statement is made by learned counsel for the respondent that respondent has already applied to the competent authority for permission and decree will be executed only after grant of permission. 3. Similar issue came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of – Yamunabai Dattoba Taware Vs. Nana Bhikoba Nagade [2006(6) Bom.C.R. 31]wherein it is held that provisions of section 22(1)(a) are not applicable in the event suit is filed prior to issuance of notification. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Present revision is accordingly dismissed. [ R. V. MORE, J.]