1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATNT APPEAL No. 45 OF 1995 Harikishan s/o Ramkisan Agarwal & anr. v. R.D.C. Amravati & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.C. Mehadia Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.T. Gilda Advocate for Res. 2 ,3 & 4. ..... CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 14 th OCTOBER, _2010. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellants made an attempt to distinguish the judgment rendered by this Court on 1.10.2010 in LPA No. 150 of 2010 (Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah v. Manhar Auto Service) on the ground that the said LPA related to the dispute between the landlord and tenant arising out of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 whereas the dispute in the present appeal arises out of the orders made by the authorities under C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises & Rent Control Order 1949. The orders made are by quasi judicial authorities and therefore a writ of certiorari could be 2 issued. We have carefully considered the submission by the learned counsel for the appellants so also our judgment in LPA No. 150 of 2010. We reject the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants since in our opinion the dispute ultimately is amongst the landlord and tenant. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 was brought into force by way of substitution/ addition for the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 in the Vidarbha region. Whether or not the orders are to be passed by quasi judicial authority or a Small Cause Court or Civil Court would hardly be relevant since there is a substitution of quasi judicial authorities acting under C.P & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order 1949 by the Civil Courts. In our opinion, therefore, it will make no difference, since essentially the dispute is between the landlord and tenant in the matter of tenancy. In the result, we follow our judgment in LPA No. 150 of 2010 decided on 1.10.2010. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/ 3