: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6464 OF 2008 M/s. The Book Point (India) Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri A.Y. Bookwala i/by Smt. Laxmi Mankar for the Petitioner. Shri V.Y. Sanglikar for Respondent No.1. Shri Rajan Jaykar i/by M/s. Jayakar for Respondent No.3. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. The challenge in the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 14th August, 2008 passed by the Estate Officer vide which the Estate Officer directed the present petitioner to continue its evidence which had been commenced earlier. 2. Vide a detailed order, the Estate Officer concluded as under: - “The pleadings and records made available before Estate Officer prima facie establish the following: a) O.P. 1 is the tenant of Applicant Co. : 1 : b) O.P. 3 is a separate legal entity, a private limited co. incorporated under the provisions of Company Law. c) O.P. 3 is occupying the application premises leased to O.P. 1 and claims to be an authorised occupant of the application premises as the subsidiary co. of O.P. 1. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that O.P. 3 has to establish that they are authorised to occupy the application premises by leading evidence first. Therefore, application filed by O.P. 3 is dismissed. O.P. 3 is directed to make available their witness for cross examination by the applicant Co. on 19.09.2008 at 4.30 p.m.” 3. Apparently, there does not appear to be any documentary evidence produced before the Estate Officer or any other competent authority which could grant any status of a tenant or an authorised occupant to the petitioner in the present petition. Both the parties have placed reliance upon the judgments of a Division Bench in Nandini Shah' s case and Bombay Cycle & Motor Agency Co. Ltd.' s case. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and particularly in view of the fact that the Petitioner has : 1 : already been examined one of its witnesses and there is no documentary evidence placed on record to show that the petitioner is a tenant or an authorised occupant, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J