RAKESH Vs. HEMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals can be decided together since the suits and the appeals were decided by the court below by a common judgment. Identical questions of law and facts are involved in all of them. The defendants are the appellants in all these appeals since the decision went against the defendants in both the courts below.

(2.) The facts giving rise to these appeals are as below,- The respondents/plaintiffs instituted suits against the appellants for possession and damages. The respondents purchased the suit property which was a dilapidated building known as Ramsingh Chawl. They purchased it on 7/7/1976. The property is registered in their name with the Municipal Corporation. The respondents were put in possession by their vendor. The respondents have been paying the taxes regularly since then. Since the building had become dilapidated, it came down in the year 1981. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation by order dated 22/8/1981 directed that the building has become unsafe for human habitation and it should be pulled down. Accordingly, the Corporation Authorities pulled down the entire building on 23/8/1981. The plaintiff, therefore, served notice on the appellants. The appellants have constructed their huts on the open plot on which formerly the building Ramsingh Chawl was standing. The appellants did not remove their huts inspite of the notice. The respondents, therefore, claimed damages of Rs.5/- per day. It is the contention of the respondents that the premises in question do not fall within the slum area and, therefore, are not governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971.

(3.) The appellants/defendants filed their written statement. They deny that the building had collapsed in 1981 or that Municipal Corporation demolished the said building. They also deny that after the building was pulled down, land was lying completely vacant. It is the contention of the defendants that they had never vacated the premises. They are not trespassers. The building comes within the slum area and is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Slum Area Development Act, 1971. It is their contention that, therefore, the respondents have no right to institute the suit and seek possession of the suit property without the permission of the authority constituted under the Slum Area Development Act.