JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---In this case the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 23rd of December, 1985 detaining him under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981. 2. It is an admitted position that after the detenu was detained under the said order the grounds of detention as well as copies of the documents, referred to and relied; upon in the said grounds, were supplied to the detenu. The detenu was actually detained on 1st of November, 1985. His detention was approved by the State Government on 7-11-1985. His case was referred to the Advisory Board on 20-11-1985. The Advisory Board gave him personal hearing on 13-12-1985 and submitted its report accompanied by the proceedings on 17-12-1985. Thereafter the Government confirmed the detention on 23-12-1985. Even the report of the Detaining Authority under section 3(3) of the Act dated 4-11-1985 was received in the Home Department on 5-11-1985. Therefore, practically all the provisions of the law were wholly complied with. However, it is contended by Shri Madbhavi, learned Counsel appearing for the detenu that assuming what is stated in the grounds of detention is true, still the averments made therein covered only civil disputes between the landlord and the tenant and in no case it could be said that the activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ajay Dixit v. State of U.P. others)4, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 18. He also contended that there is nothing on record to show that the copies of all relevant documents in Tamil language were supplied to the detenu. 3. So far as the second contention relating to the supply of translated copies in Tamil language is concerned, in para (b) of the affidavit the Commissioner of Police has stated in clearest terms that the translated copies of all the documents in Tamil language were supplied to the detenu. We have gone through the record and we found that the detenu has signed in token of receipt of the said translated copies. 4. We have gone through the record and we found that the detenu has signed in token of receipt of the said translated copies. 4. So far as the first contention of Shri Madhavi that in no case it could be said that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is concerned, it is not possible for us to accept this contention also in view of the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 810 of 1985 (Laxmi Vijay Salunkhe v. D.S. Soman, The Commissioner of Police and others)3, decided on 4th December, 1985 by R.A. Jahagirdar and S.M. Daud, JJ. 5. From the very perusal of the grounds of detention in the present case, it is quite clear that in para 1 the Detaining Authority had made a reference to various facts to show that the detenu is a slum lord within the meaning of said expression as defined in section 2(f) of the Act. For this purpose it is stated that the detenu has encroached upon the Government land at S.No. 14 and City Survey No. 61 situated at Narayah Samiti, Tembhe Nagar along Eastern Express Highway, Chembur, Bombay, in the year 1968. Then in para 2 a reference is made to the tenants to whom the rooms were allotted. Thereafter in 1980 the detenu repaired the said chawl and the rooms therein are now occupied by about 20 persons named therein. The detenu has rented out these rooms after accepting deposits ranging between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/-, and monthly rent ranging between Rs. 50/- and Rs. 150/-. Thereafter a reference is made to the statement of various tenants numbering about 17 wherein they have complained that the detenu was not giving them any receipt when the rent was accepted. Whenever they were forced to vacate the premises under threat, even the deposit was not returned and whenever there was delay on their part in payment of rent, the detenu used to visit their rooms and threatened them with dire consequences. It is also stated that when one of the tenants Shri. T. Ayyakannu informed the detenu that he would not vacate the room unless the balance amount was returned to him, the detenu got enrages and took out a sickle and assaulted him with it. It is also stated that when one of the tenants Shri. T. Ayyakannu informed the detenu that he would not vacate the room unless the balance amount was returned to him, the detenu got enrages and took out a sickle and assaulted him with it. Therefore, it is quite clear from the grounds of detention that the detenu was acting as a slum lord, and used to give threats which necessarily had frightening effect upon the persons living in the slum area. The activities of the detenu constitute a chain of action permitting an inference that his conduct was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the basis of the material placed before it, the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that the detenu was a slum lord and his activities are causing, feeling of insecurity among the section of public in the locality and the area of Narayan Samity, Tembhe Nagar, Chembur and, therefore, his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The decision upon which reliance is placed by Shri Madbhavi i.e. Ajay Dixit's case has been referred to and distinguished by the division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 810 of 1985. Therefore, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the said decision over again. To say the least the present case is wholly covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in Laxmi Vijay Salunkhe's case. In this view of the matter there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence Rule is discharged. -----