WP.6898-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 6898 OF 2010 Shri Dinkar Pandurang Dahibhate ...Petitioner Vs. Baburao Jakhuji Wakankar (since deceased, represented through LRs.) & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel i/b Sugandh Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 1A & 1B. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : MARCH 22, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondents Nos. 1A & 1B. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7th January, 2010 passed by the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 592 of 2006. By the said order, the learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the application (Exh. 56) filed by the petitioner, seeking leave & permission of the Court to lead additional evidence, as contemplated under O. 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. WP.6898-10 - 2 - 2. When the matter came up for admission 27th September 2010 a submission was made that the petitioner wanted to withdraw Application (Exh.56) with liberty to file fresh application and in view of this statement, notice was issued to the respondent. The Appellate Court has, after giving cogent reasons, rejected the application filed by the applicant to lead the additional evidence. That being the position, the question of withdrawing the application (Exh.56) with liberty to file a fresh application does not arise. In the application it was contended that when the revision application was filed in this Court, at one stage this Court was pleased to hold that as per the Development Control Rules, particularly Rule 2.1.A1, the owner is liable to provide area to the tenant in the newly constructed building of not less than 15 Sq. meters and therefore, an undertaking to that effect was given by the landlord to this Court and therefore, the revision application was dismissed. It is contended, therefore, in the application that it was necessary to frame additional issue and lead the evidence by remanding the matter to the trial Court for giving the appropriate findings. 3. The Appellate Court has observed that “the appropriate remedy which is available to the appellant herein is to seek relief from the appropriate forum since the Civil Court is not a forum to decide the WP.6898-10 - 3 - Development Control Rules or minimum or maximum area which has to be provided to the tenant under Section 16(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999” and, therefore, rightly rejected the application for leading additional evidence. The respondent/landlord has already given an undertaking that he wold provide premises to the petitioner/tenant in the newly constructed building. Out of 11 tenants, 5 tenants have already handed over possession. It is only because these appeals are pending in the District Court, the respondent/landlord has not been in a position to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building. It is obvious that every attempt is made by the petitioner to protract the proceedings so that he should not hand over possession of the premises to the landlord. No case is made out for interfering with the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The District Court, however, shall decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from today. Both the parties shall appear before the District Court, Pune on 5th April, 2011. . Writ Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. [ V. M. KANADE J.]