dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5860 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5860 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5860 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Ajay Raj for the Petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 13th October, 2008. : 13th October, 2008. : 13th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the impugned order whereby the court has rightly dismissed the application to decide the preliminary issue about jurisdiction of the civil court under section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1986. The suit is for possession under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. An affidavit of evidence of plaintiff is already on record. The issue as raised and observed is a mixed question of fact and law which covers the aspect of jurisdiction which is ( 2 ) always the subject to foundation of existence/admitted position of fact. Therefore, an opportunity need to be give to all the parties that itself means such preliminary issue cannot be decided at this stage. Taking all this into account, I see no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]