-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.8195 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.8195 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.8195 OF 2007 Shri Samirkumar Surendra Bhattacharya, Petitioner. Vs Shri Arun Achyut Bhave, .. Respondent. Mr M.S.Lagu, for the petitioner. Mr M.L.Patil, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 25.02.08. DATE : 25.02.08. DATE : 25.02.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Sangli in Misc. Civil Appeal No.115 of 2006, by which the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed and the order passed by the trial Court on the application at Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.170 of 2006 has been set aside. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the appellate court has allowed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, there is no evidence of the expert to prima facie believe that the building is not dilapidated. This finding is recorded in the face of the notice issued by the Corporation for demolition of the building to the respondent-landlord -2- and secondly on the ground that the notice issued by the Corporation dated 22.12.2005 under section 264 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act has not been challenged by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the petitioner has not challenged the said notice. Keeping that in view and considering that this petition is directed against an interlocutory order and the order impugned is discretionary in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner from challenging the notice dated 22.12.2005 issued by the Corporation under section 264 of the Act. 3. At this stage, Mr Lagu, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for protection to the petitioner for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to challenge the said notice before the appropriate forum. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied, the following order shall meet the ends of justice. (a) It is open for the petitioner to challenge the notice dated 22.12.2005 issued by the Corporation under section 264 of the Act before appropriate forum within a -3- period of four weeks from today. For the period of four weeks the parties shall maintain statusquo. All contentions of the parties are kept open. While granting the order of status-quo I shall not be understood to have examined the merits of the case and if the petitioner takes out any proceedings challenging the said notice under section 264 of the Act same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)