1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6262 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6263 OF 2009 Mr.Praveen Chopda & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Rajesh Omprakash Murarka & Ors. .. Respondents Ms Mukta Singh Gobse for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Bhat for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23 rd July 2009. P.C.: . The petitioners are respondent nos.2 and 3 in an application filed by 1 st to 3 rd respondents under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the competent authority. The 4 th respondent in these petitions is the 1 st respondent in the said applications. The 1 st to 3 rd respondents are claiming to be the licensors and it is alleged that the 4 th respondent herein is their licencee. By the impugned order passed by the competent authority, the 4 th respondent was permitted to file his written statement to the application for eviction under section 24 of the said Act of 1999. The said order has been confirmed in revision application preferred by the petitioners. 2 2. The submission of the petitioners is that the 4 th respondent had not even applied for setting aside an order passed by the competent authority to the effect that the application made by the 1 st to 3 rd respondents will proceed without written statement. It is submitted that in absence of the prayer for setting aside the said order, the competent authority had no jurisdiction to take the written statement of the 4 th respondent on record. The submission is that the delay was not at all explained by the 4th respondent and after finding that there was unexplained delay, an inconsistent order has been passed permitting the 4 th respondent to file written statement. It is submitted that after various issues were raised by the petitioners by filing written statement, the 1 st to 3 rd respondents acting in collusion with the 4 th respondent have obtained impugned order with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioners. Therefore, there is a complete illegality and irregularity. 3. I have considered the submissions. The petitioners are seeking to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All that has been done by the impugned order is that the alleged licencee respondent in the application for eviction filed by 3 the 1 st to 3 rd respondents herein (licencesors) has been permitted to file written statement opposing the eviction application. The petitioners are also respondents to the eviction application alongwith the 4 th respondent. There is no prejudice to the petitioners if the 4 th respondent is permitted to file written statement. Assuming that there is some procedural irregularity, this is not a case where writ jurisdiction can be invoked. Writ petitions are accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)