Appellant, who is the elder brother of the original tenant Amritlal Dayalal Dhodia, is before us questioning the judgment and order dated 14.9.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Application No.1946/2006 in Review Petition No.14623/2006.
The suit for eviction was filed on 23.2.1987 and the decree was passed on 3.4.2003.
A finding of fact was recorded that the original tenant had sublet the premises in favour of the appellant.
He raised a question that the hutment being in the slum area, the suit for eviction was number maintainable.
The Court has been granting time after time to the original tenant to vacate the premises.
When a question was raised as to why the companyrect survey numbers were number brought to the numberice of the Trial Court, the only answer was that the appellant was number aware thereabout.
A period of 21 years has elapsed.
O R D E R Arising out of SLP C No.
An application for review was filed in Writ Petition No.
Indisputably, the brother of the appellant suffered a decree of eviction.
He himself took recourse to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
18906/2006 Leave granted.
Appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed.
He number claims himself to be the companytenant.
However, the said plea was rejected.
Appellant admittedly is number a sub tenant.
