1 wp2730.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2730 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.D. Vakil, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mr. Patil for petitioner, Advocate Mr. Vakil for respondent no.3. 2. In a suit filed by petitioner claiming to be tenant of the suit premises and for protecting his possession, the present respondent nos. 2 and 3 have raised objection that suit is hit by provisions of Section 17 and 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. They therefore, sought preliminary issue to be framed accordingly. The application was opposed by the present petitioner who contended that the provisions of that Act are not relevant at all. 2 wp2730.11 3. After hearing both the sides, trial Court has allowed that application of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and hence framed the issue to find out whether it has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. 4. Contention of Advocate Mr. Patil is that the loan is obtained by respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 is not in possession. The petitioner in his capacity as tenant of the respondent no.1 is in possession. Hence, action under the above mentioned 2002 Act can not be taken against his tenancy and tenanted premises. He further argues that as this is apparent provisions of 2002 Act are not attracted. 5. I find, the arguments premature. Trial Court has only framed the issue and after giving parties necessary opportunity and after hearing their arguments on these lines, trial Court will record appropriate finding on preliminary issue framed by it. Petitioner can challenge that adjudication. 6. Petition is therefore misconceived and hence without recording any finding on the factual assertions in the matter, Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2730.11