:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.815 OF 2008 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. Petitioner. Vs. Hushang Adi Vakil .. Respondent. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar with Mr.Minoo Siodia with Mr.Devidas Keluskar i/b Rustamji & Ginwala for the petitioner. Mr.Mohan Mungaliya for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the courts below by which the application filed by the petitioners raising the question of jurisdiction has been dismissed holding that the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 are not applicable to the suit premises in possesson of the petitioner. There is no dispute that if the suit premises fall within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council, the old Rent Act would apply. The only question, therefore, raised and falls for my consideration in the present writ petition is whether the premises in question are within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council. :2: :2: :2: 3. The case set up by the respondent-plaintiff is that the suit premises are outside the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council and, therefore, the provisions of old Bombay Rent Act would not apply. Mr.Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-defendants submits that the courts below have not recorded a positive findings on the question whether the premises are within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council and in view thereof the courts below are wrong in recording the findings that the Rent Act would not apply. He further submits that the appellate court had no occasion and reason to enter into the question whether the petitioner-defendants are exempted from operation of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1991. Mr.Mungaliya, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord on the other hand submits that he has no objection if the question is kept open, allowing the parties to lead evidence to establish whether or not the suit premises are within the limits of the Municipal Council. He emphasised that the suit premises are outside the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council and they are not governed by old Rent Act. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the impugned orders passed by the courts below I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: :3: :3: :3: . It is open for the parties to lead evidence to prove whether or not the suit premises fall within the limits of Dahanu Municipal Council during trial and further address the court on the point whether the old Rent Act would apply or not. The trial Court shall consider the question in the light of evidence and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order. . It is also open for the petitioners to raise the question as to whether the petitioner, being Government company, is excluded from operation of new Rent Act. If such question is raised same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. It is open for the petitioners to place unreported judgment of this court in Smt.Leelabhai Gajanan Pansare and Smt.Leelabhai Gajanan Pansare and Smt.Leelabhai Gajanan Pansare and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others in First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 decided on 20th in First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 decided on 20th in First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 decided on 20th December, 2006 December, 2006 December, 2006 before the court below. . While granting such liberty I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the contentions urged either by Mr.Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner or Mr.Mungaliya, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and the trial Court shall decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. :4: :4: :4: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)