Ashfaquali Ramzanali @ Babbumiya vs Hiralal Shahu

R.K. Deshpande, J.—Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

Shri S.V.Manohar, the learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and Shri B.N.Mohta, the learned Counsel appears for the Respondent sole.

The question is whether the area in question falls in the Notified Slum Area. The Appellate Court, has, in the order impugned in this petition, recorded the finding, that tenanted at premises does not fall in slum area and hence, the decree for eviction and possession, has been passed after recording further finding, that the case is made out by the landlord for eviction and possession.

Initially, this matter was dismissed by this Court on 24.2.2010. This order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, has decided the Civil Appeal No. 1864 of 2011 observing, that this Court to consider the set of documents i.e. maps and revenue records placed before this Court in writ petition and to take a decision one way or the other whether the suit shop is situated in slum area or not. Accordingly, this matter is listed before this Court.

Both the learned Counsels appearing for the parties agree, that the matter can be sent back to the Appellate Court, for considering the evidence, which is placed on record of this writ petition to find out whether tenanted premises in question falls in the slum area or not Both the learned Counsels appearing for the parties further agree, that the parties be permitted to place on record additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. I do not find any reason to reject such proposal.

In view of above, the judgment and order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the District Judge5, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 453 of 1993, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court for deciding it afresh, by permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. It is made clear that the remand has been made only for the purposes of deciding the question as to whether premises in question falls in the slum area or not. It is on the basis of finding that Court may pass an appropriate order. The parties to appear before the Appellate Court on 18.8.2011. The Appellate Court to decide the appeal thereafter, within a period of four months. No. costs.