:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2008 IN IN IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 19144 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 19144 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO. 19144 OF 2008 IN IN IN C.R.A. NO. 403 OF 2007 C.R.A. NO. 403 OF 2007 C.R.A. NO. 403 OF 2007 Balkrishna Gopal Murkar ..Applicant / Petitioner versus Smt. Sunita A. Gadade & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. V. Govilkar for the Applicant / Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Walawalkar with Mr. Sameer Bhalekar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. There appears no reason why the application for condonation of delay should not be allowed. Hence, delay is condoned. Civil Application is disposed of. :2: 3. On 21.8.2007, this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application preferred by the applicant / petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not established in any manner that the suit premises are in a slum area. This Court upheld the bonafide need of the respondent No.1 - landlady, who owns only one room on the ground that both her sons will need additional space after marriage of her second son. 4. After this Order was passed, the petitioner applied for review of the Order on the ground that he has now come into possession of evidence that the area in question is a slum. Two Certificates were annexed to the review petition vide Exhibit ’B’ dated 17.6.1980 purported to be a certificate issued by the Controller of Slums, Bombay & B.S.D., that the structure is censused in the name of the petitioner. The other document is a census form, said to have been issued by the Office of the Deputy Collector showing that the area in question was censused by the Authority mentioned above. Since the document suggested that the area was censused and therefore a slum. A reply was called for. The Deputy Collector (Encroachment / Removal) and Competent Authority has submitted an affidavit in reply in which he has stated that the certificate :3: produced by the petitioner at Exhibit ’B’ is not issued by the Office of the Controller of Slums, Bombay and B.S.D., by whom it is purported to be issued. It appears that if the certificate is not issued by the Office by whom it purports to have been issued then there is every reason to look upon the certificate as a fabricated document. 5. Though it might be said that the second document i.e. Exhibit ’C’ produced by the petitioner shows that the hut was censused, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out any provision of law which suggests that a census is carried out only in respect of a slum. The learned counsel for the respondents Authority is correct in submitting that it must be shown directly that the area falls within the four corners of a slum declared under Section 4 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Hence there is no merit in the review petition, which is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. 6. Time to vacate the premises is extended by a period of one month from today. :4: 7. Having regard to the certificate produced by the petitioner at Exhibit ’B’ to the review petition, and having regard to the affidavit in reply, it appears that the document is fabricated. It is clear that it is not issued by the Controller of Slums, Bombay and B.S.D., by whom it purports to have been issued. It is therefore a fit case to call upon the petitioner to show cause why action under Section 340 read with 195 of the Cr.P.C. and/or the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against the petitioner, hence the petitioner is called upon to show cause within a period of fifteen days why such action as proposed should not be initiated against him. Mr. Govilkar waives service on behalf of the petitioner, who is present in court. Notice is made returnable on 27.2.2009. 8. The petitioner is directed to produce the original of the letter at Exhibit ’B’ in the Court on the returnable date. The letter shall be kept in a sealed cover by the Registry. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)