CRA. 285-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 285 OF 2011 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Krishnaji Takalkar ...Applicant Vs. Laxman Kavade & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. P. B. Shah, for the Applicant. Mr. A. M. Joshi, for Respondent No.1. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and respondent No.1. Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the Competent Authority. 2. Brief facts are as under- . Respondent No. 1 filed an application against respondent No.2 under 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The said application was allowed. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal against the said order. Her appeal, however, was rejected. Against the said order, CRA. 285-11 - 2 - she preferred writ petition in this Court, which was also dismissed in limini. 3. The applicant herein claims that he purchased the suit property from respondent No.2 in the year 2004 and is, therefore, owner and in possession of the said property. He, therefore, filed an application before the Competent Authority in execution and prayed for rejection of the execution application, taken out by respondent No.2 for setting aside the order dated 29th September, 2007, passed in Misc. Application No. 25 of 2007. The Competent Authority, however, rejected the said application, in view of the provisions of Section 24(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he being lawful owner, the Competent Authority could not have decided the title of the applicant in respect of the said property. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that a warrant of possession has been issued against the licensee and if the applicant has any claim in respect of the said property, he can always approach the competent forum. In my view, since the applicant claims to be owner of the said property, he will have to approach the competent forum; and secondly, the warrant of possession, admittedly, is not issued in his name. If, therefore, the decree is CRA. 285-11 - 3 - obstructed, the said obstruction will have to be decided in accordance with law. Two weeks time is given to the applicant to take appropriate steps for approaching the competent forum. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [ V. M. KANADE J.]