GANPAT SAHDEO DHOLAM Vs. SUKHNITADEVI KANTESSARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, holding that the petitioner tenant is not ready and willing to pay the rent. Both the courts below have found that even after the tenant received the demand notice issued by the landlord, he did not care to pay the arrears of rent and he also did not make an application under section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act for determination of the standard rent. Both the courts below, therefore, have recorded a concurrent findings that a decree under section 12(3)(a) of the Act is liable to be passed against the tenant.

(2.) It is further to be seen here that both the courts below have concurrently found that the tenant petitioner has failed to prove that the suit premises are situated in the slums area, declared under the Slums Clearance Act. It is pertinent to note here that though along with the petition a copy of the notification issued under the Slums Clearance Act has been filed by the petitioner, in the petition the petitioner has no where even mentioned the survey number of the land on which the suit premises are constructed nor has stated in the petition he has stated that by a notification dated 9.9.1977 the suit land was declared as Slums Area. As the petitioner has not given even survey number of the relevant area. It is not possible to verify whether the land has been declared as slums. It is further to be seen here that the notification on which the reliance is placed in this petition was not produced before the courts below and therefore, there is no finding recorded by the Courts below on this aspect of the matter. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would not be proper for this court to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.