1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3720/2008 J.K. Education Society through its President and others ...Versus... Rajkumar Sawai Bhawanisingh s/o Udaysingh Bhosle and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for petitioners] [Shri S.R. Deshpande, Adv. for respondent No.1] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 10.09.2008 A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for respondent No.1/caveator that in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 (2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 remedy of revision has been provided before the State Government or the Officer authorized to hear revision and therefore, due to availability of the said remedy, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Per contra, learned Counsel for petitioners argued that since the impugned order, according to him, is without jurisdiction, writ petition can always be entertained. 2 In my opinion, the petitioners will have to take recourse to the remedy provided by statute, namely, by filing revision before the appropriate authority, as after the first authority one more superior authority has been provided for examining the order of the first authority and therefore, writ petition cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for petitioners, however, states that the respondents have proceeded to take possession of the suit property and there is a school which is being run in the suit premises. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 upon taking instructions from his client states that in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the respondents are entitled to double the licence fee, as agreed and if the petitioners deposit the balance amount in this Court, he will have no objection for allowing the petitioners 15 days' time to approach the revisional authority. Learned Counsel for petitioners, however, upon taking instructions submits that he will require at least three installments of Rs.10,00,000/- each and the last installment shall be according to the balance due. The first installment of Rs.10,00,000/- will be deposited in this Court by 10.10.2008 and second and third on 10th 3 of each month thereafter. Statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioners is thus accepted as an undertaking on behalf of the petitioners who are present in this Court. In addition, the petitioners should file undertaking by tomorrow to the above effect in this Court. Further orders regarding investment of the amount shall be passed after the money is deposited. Put up after amounts are deposited in this Court for further orders. This writ petition is not entertained. The petitioners are granted protection for 15 days from execution of the impugned order from today to enable the petitioners to file revision before the appropriate authority. This order is made without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties in the litigation including the amount of deposit. All contentions in this writ petition are kept open. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw