1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.276 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO.21 OF 2011. (Baldeoraj Harinamdas Sahani Vs. Smt. Rajkumari Ratanlalji Lahoti) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri P.P. Pendke, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2011. Advocate Shri Pendke states that matter is to be argued by Advocate Sudame and therefore, he seeks adjournment. Advocate Shri Bhangde strongly opposes any adjournment and points out that when the matter was earlier heard, Advocate Shri Pendke had only advanced the oral arguments. He further states that he made inquiry with Advocate Shri Sudame and Advocate Sudame has communicated to him that Advocate Shri Pendke is to argue the matter. Advocate Shri Pendke asserts that he has been instructed that Advocate Shri Sudame will argue the matter. As Advocate Shri Pendke has argued earlier occasions, we have rejected his request. 2 Advocate Shri Bhangde has pointed out that the petition before the learned Single Judge was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Tribunals (Small Cause Court and District Court) who decided the matter under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 were not joined as party respondent and there is no prayer for writ of certiorari before learned Single Judge. Advocate Shri Pendke seeks short adjournment to substantiate his contention that even in such circumstances the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. We find the matter covered by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in (2010) 8 SCC 329 Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil and the judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in Muhammed Enamul Haque Vs. Muhammad Husain 1968 Mh.L.J. NOC Page 1. We, therefore, find that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take such steps as are open to him in law. JUDGE JUDGE NSN