SHYAMKUNWAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing appellant No. 1 Shyamkunwar Giri, who is present in person, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court dismissing their petition under Article 227 of the Constitution does not warrant an interference. In the present case, respondent No. 4 Jaikaran Baldev Singh brought suits for ejectment of the appellants from the chawls in question in the City Civil Court, Bombay way back in 1969 and both the suits were decreed after contest in 1983 i.e. after a lapse of 14 years, holding that they be ranked trespassers. The appeals preferred by the appellants to the High Court were summarily rejected. They then took out chamber summons in the City Civil Court for a declaration that the decrees were a nullity and incapable of execution and upon that basis obtained ad interim injunction. Both the chamber summons were dismissed on contest and the injunction vacated. The appellants went up in revision before the High Court but the revisions were dismissed summarily. Thereafter, the appellants brought suits in the City Civil Court, Bombay for a declaration that the decrees had been fraudulently obtained, null and void and inexecutable. The said suits are still pending in the City Civil Court. In the suits the appellants took out notices of motion for injunction and obtained ex parte injunctions, which were later vacated and the High Court declined to interfere with the order disallowing injunction.

(2.) Undeterred, appellant No. 1 brought a suit in the Small Cause Court, Bombay for a declaration that he was a tenant in respect of the premises in dispute and tried to obtain temporary injunction but the appellant was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that his application was based on mis-statement of facts. He then went up in appeal but the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court declined to interfere.

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 by its impugned order dated September 29, 1966 on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the property in question was not a slum area within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act. The finding reached by the Tribunal was a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence, and the High Court obviously could not have interfered with that finding under Article 227 of the Constitution. Further, the High Court in the facts of circumstances of the case, was justified in holding that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellants was lacking in bonafides and declined to exercise its discretionary powers under Article 227. We are in agreement with the High Court that the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable.