JUDGMENT-This Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raises an interesting question under section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, with regard to the nature of the order of demolition contemplated under that sub-section. 1. The relevant facts are as follows: Petitioner No. 2 is the landlord. Petitioner No. 1 is the receiver of the properties belonging to petitioner No. 2 appointed by the High Court in mortgage suit No. 454 of 1949. Respondent No. I is the tenant of part of the said property situate at 156. Tardeo Road, Bombay. Part of the said premises which consists of only a ground floor is let to respondent No. 1 as a monthly tenant. The petitioners terminated the tenancy of respondent No. 1 by notice dated March 30, 1960; thereafter respondent No. 1 is in the premises as a statutory tenant. 3. The premises fall within the regular line of the street drawn by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for Tardeo Road. Bombay. Relying on a notice dated November 21. 1960, which called upon- petitioner No. 2 to set back the part of the building abutting on Tardeo Road, which projected within the regular line of the street, the petitioners filed on December 23. 1960 a suit for possession under section 13 (1) (hhh) against respondent No. I. Respondent No.2 was added as party defendant to the said suit though no relief was sought against him as respondent No.2 was a defendant in the High Court suit No. 454 of 1949 as the guarantor of the mortgage debt. 4. The suit was resisted by respondent No.1 on the ground that the notice given by the Municipality was at the instance of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2; that it was nothing more than an intimation of disapproval under section 346 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; and that hence it did not amount to an order for immediate demolition of the premises under section 13 (1) (hhh). It is not necessary to set out the other contentions raised by respondent No.1 as they were not referred to in the Courts below or in this Court. 5. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, who tried the suit, upheld the contention of respondent No. 1 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It is not necessary to set out the other contentions raised by respondent No.1 as they were not referred to in the Courts below or in this Court. 5. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, who tried the suit, upheld the contention of respondent No. 1 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The appellate Bench of that Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners challenge the concurrent decisions in the above petition on the ground that the Courts below manifestly erred in law in holding that the notice dated November 21, 1960 was not an order for demolition within the meaning of section 13 (1) (hhh). 6. The notice runs as follows: