ssp 1 WP 1698 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1698 OF 2011 Dr.Bipin Pranjivandas Patel .....Petitioner versus Mr.A.E.Nerkar and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.Sameer Tendulkar, for the petitioner. Mr.Milind More, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 08 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner impugning the order dated 21-07-2011 passed by the Estate Officer. By the said order, the application seeking adjournment for cross- examining the witness of the Respondent No.2 came to be rejected. The petitioner is in occupation of a premises admeasuring more than 2000 sq.ft. in the building owned by the respondent No.2 Corporation, known as Asian Court, situated at 13, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 006. In respect of the said premises, proceedings have been initiated against the ssp 2 WP 1698 of 2011 petitioner for his eviction under the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971. The said proceedings were at the stage of the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent No.2 on 21-07-2011. Prior thereto, the said proceedings were adjourned on five occasions i.e. 18-10-2010, 13-12-2010, 24-01-2011, 20-04-2011 and 19-07-2011, on which dates for one reason or the other, the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent No.2 was not completed by the petitioner. Lastly when the matter was on 21-07-2011, an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment on the ground that the Advocate appearing was not available as he was busy in this Court in his personal matter. In view of what had transpired on the earlier dates, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the intention of the petitioner appeared to be for delaying the proceedings by not completing the cross-examination. 3. Though, it is true that adjournments have been sought on behalf of the petitioner on a number of occasions to complete the cross- examination of the respondent No.2’s witness. Considering the fact that the proceedings are for his eviction under the Public Premises Eviction Act, in our view, it would be just and proper to grant a final indulgence to the petitioner to complete the cross-examination of the witness Shri S.T.Sawadekar. Normally, we would not have interfered with the interlocutory order as the present one. However, we deem it appropriate ssp 3 WP 1698 of 2011 to interfere in the matter in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the following directions. (i) The impugned order dated 21-07-2011 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is granted liberty to cross-examine the witness of the respondent No.2. The petitioner and the respondents including the witness Shri Sawardekar to remain present before the Estate Officer on 28-09-2011 at 3.00 p.m. Since the witness is coming from out of Mumbai as he is posted out of Mumbai, the cross-examination as far as possible to be completed on the same day and in any event, the Estate Officer should see that the cross-examination is completed by the next day. (ii) In view of the inconvenience caused to the respondent No.2, the petitioner to pay a costs of `10,000/- to the respondent No.2 before the next date of hearing i.e. 28-09-2011 and produce evidence of having paid the said amount before the Estate Officer. If such costs are not paid as directed by this Court, the benefit of this order would not enure to the petitioner and resultantly the impugned order dated 21-07-2011 would stand revived and the proceedings would thereafter, continue from that stage. It is clarified that this order is passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present case and would not operate as a precedent in any other matter. It is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion as regards the allegations made by the petitioner against the ssp 4 WP 1698 of 2011 Estate Officer. 4. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )