:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1543 OF 2008 Shri Harishchandra V.Kolpate ...Petitioner Versus Mr.Arun Shantaram Sawant and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.M.A.Saiyed, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.B.K.Raje, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact decreeing the landlords Suit on the ground that the petitioner has sublet the suit premises. 2. Insofar as the issue of subletting is concerned, the courts below have concurred. It was held that the respondent has proved that the suit premises have been sublet by the petitioner to the Original Defendant no.2. The version of the petitioner was that the :2: :2: :2: Defendant no.2 is his employee. However, the evidence on record demonstrates that the Suit Notice to Quit and vacate was received by the Defendant no.2. The said Notice was not received by the petitioner who is the Original Defendant no.1. If the case is that the Defendant no.2 is the employee, then, admittedly the possession of Defendant no.2 stands admitted. Now, the limited issue was whether the Defendant no.1 has proved his case that the Defendant no.2 was his employee. Both courts held that he has not produced any record to show that defendant no.2 was the employee. Thus, the presence of Defendant no.2 in the suit premises has been rightly inferred as an act of subletting by the petitioner and that too without the consent of the landlord. He was therefore liable for eviction on this ground. 3. The second argument is that the suit premises are in a slum area and are declared as such. It has also been turned down by the courts below. The witness summoned from the office of the Deputy Collector admitted that, which of the lands have been declared as slum area, is not clear from the Notification. :3: :3: :3: Further, whether the suit premises are in CTS No. 429 or CTS No.429-A is also not clarified by him. In such background, the plea that the suit premises are situated in the slum area has been rightly rejected. The reliance on the deposition of this witness who is from the office of the Additional Collector (Encroachment Removal) is appropriate. He is not supporting the petitioner’s version at all. There is no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings of facts in my limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. No costs. 4. At the request of Mr.Saiyed, the Decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of 4 weeks. However, the same is on the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate, encumber, part with possession or create any third party rights in the suit premises. sd/- ********