1 LPA49/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.49 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5141 OF 2007 Sarvagnya P. Trivedi ...Appellant v/s The Controller of Accommodation and anr. ...Respondents Mr G.S. Godbole with Mr R.N. Kachare i/b M/s A. Bharat and Co. for Appellant. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2011. 2 LPA49/08 P.C. :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record. In our opinion, considering the conduct of the appellant of making incorrect and misleading statements in the petition, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to any relief which is in the discretion of the Court. What is significant is that admittedly the appellant is a practicing lawyer and she has made misleading statements in the petition. What is further to be seen is that the appellant relies on the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 which are basically made for the protection of persons who are in need of accommodation. The premises are requisitioned premises, allotted by the Government because the building which was being occupied by the parents of the appellant had collapsed. Admittedly, the appellant is married, she is living with her husband and does not need this accommodation for herself. The premises are residential premises. In our opinion, therefore, considering the nature of 3 LPA49/08 the legislative provisions and the circumstances of the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to any relief which is in the discretion of the Court. The appeal is rejected. In our opinion, therefore, none of the submissions in law about the validity of the eviction order and right of the appellant to continue to occupy the premises can be entertained. At this stage, a request is made for continuation of the interim. The effect of the interim order is to continue the appellant in occupation of the premises. Having held that the appellant is neither on facts and in law entitled to continue to occupy the premises. In our opinion, the interim order if made will defeat the interest of justice. The request is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )