bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6326 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6326 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6326 OF 2008 M/s.New Bharat Builders ... Petitioner v/s Mr.U.Krishna Murty & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.C.Thatte for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Shetia for the respondent No.2 Bank. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH OCTOBER, 2008 10TH OCTOBER, 2008 10TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Estate Officer on 5.6.2008 finalising the draft issues. 2. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that no issue with respect fo the maintainability or jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been framed by the Estate Officer and, therefore, such issues must be framed. It is also contended that, in view of prayer (g) in the application filed by the respondent No.2 Bank before the Estate 2 Officer, an issue regarding payment of arrears of rent should also have been framed by the Estate Officer. 3. The Estate Officer has refused to modify the issues after hearing the contentions of both parties. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that there is no isssue regarding maintainability and jurisdiction framed by the Estate Officer, is not tenable as such an issue has been framed. The Estate Officer has framed the following issue:- (i) Whether the opponent No.4 proves that the present proceedings are not maintainable and/or without jurisdiction ? After this issue was pointed out to the learned advocate, he submits that the onus is placed on the petitioner to prove that the proceedings are not maintainable and/or without jurisdiction when in fact the onus should be on the Bank to prove that the Court has jurisdiction. This submission is without merit. If a party challenges the maintainability of a proceeding or the jurisdiction of an authority to hear the proceedings, it is for that party to prove that the proceedings are not maintainable and/or the authority has no jurisdiction to hear the proceedings. 4. The submission of the learned advocate that there 3 should be an issue framed regarding payment of arrears of rent also, is without any merit. Although there is a prayer contained in Clause (g) of the application for eviction, no issue has been framed with regard to that prayer. Obviously, therefore, the Estate Officer will not quanfity the arrears of rent without framing such an issue. 5. Writ petition rejected.