1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6625 OF 2009 Arjun Mohan Kambli .. Petitioner versus Smt.Narmada Ramji Bari & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Prakash Mahadik i/by Mr.Y.J.Master for the petitioner. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Taken up for final disposal considering the narrow controversy involved in the petition. The petitioner who is the original defendant No.6 in a suit filed by the 1st to 4th respondents for eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 made applications at Exhibits 88 and 90 invoking the powers of the Court under section 29 of the said Act of 1999. The application at Exhibit 88 was made for a direction to the 1st to 4th respondents not to withhold facility of toilet and water tap. The application at Exhibit 90 was made for seeking interim order in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 29 of the said Act of 1999. 2. By the impugned order, both the applications have been rejected on the ground that the applications were not maintainable and it was necessary for the petitioner to file separate Miscellaneous Applications in which enquiry 2 contemplated by section 29 of the said Act could have been conducted. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the applications have been rejected even on merits. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the applications have been rejected only on the ground that the same are not maintainable as separate Miscellaneous Application ought to have been filed by the petitioner. 4. The approach of the trial Court, to say the least, is completely hyper- technical. The suit between landlord and tenant was pending and therefore application contemplated by section 29 of the said Act as well as sub-section 3 of section 29 of the said Act could have been entertained in the pending suit. Even if the learned Judge was of the view that a separate Miscellaneous Application ought to have been filed, the learned Judge could have directed registration of the said Applications as separate Miscellaneous Applications. 5. The impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside as applications could not have been dismissed on such technical grounds. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 30th June 2009 is quashed and set aside and applications at Exhibit 88 and 90 are restored to the file. 3 (b) The trial Court will decide the prayer made in the application at Exhibit 90 for passing an interim order in terms of sub-section 3 of section 29 of the said Act as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is produced before the trial Court. (c) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the said applications are kept open. (d) This order shall not be construed to mean that the trial Court cannot proceed with the trial. The trial Court can simultaneously proceed with the trial. (e) The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (f) There will be no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)