1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4923 OF 2007 Suresh Vasant Velhal .. Petitioner Versus Devdas Balkrishna Dhopate & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29 th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The challenge in this writ petition is to the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The decree has been passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and subletting. The decree has been confirmed in appeal by the District Court. It must be stated here that the petitioner had preferred a civil revision application for challenging the impugned judgments and orders. By order dated 14th September 2006, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the civil revision application with liberty to file appropriate 2 proceedings and accordingly the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in view of the enforcement of the Town Planning Scheme No.I, Karad under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 the plot on which suit premises are situated vests in the planning authority, namely, the Karad Municipal Council. He submitted that in view of vesting of the said property under the said Town Planning Scheme, there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondents and hence, the concerned Court had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the said Act. He invited my attention to the order dated 11 th September 2008 passed by this Court by which the petitioner was permitted to file appropriate application on this aspect. He has invited my attention to Civil Application No.2332 of 2008 as well as Civil Application No.2333 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. Civil Application No.2332 of 2008 has been filed praying that the petitioner may be permitted to produce certain documents which are annexed to the application. The other civil application has been filed seeking permission to amend the written 3 statement for incorporating the challenge to the maintainability of the suit filed by the respondents on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on account of the vesting of the said property in the Municipal Council. Apart from this submission based on alleged acquisition of the property, no other submission on merits of the decree has been made. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the Town Planning Scheme was brought into force on 19 th May 1986 and the plot on which the suit premises are situate is affected by the Town Planning Scheme. He invited my attention to a true copy of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.330 of 2006 filed by the applicant seeking a declaration that the decree passed for possession which is subject matter of this writ petition is illegal as that part of the plot on which the suit premises is situated is vested in the planning authority. He invited my attention to the written statement which was originally filed before the trial Court. He pointed out that even in the said written statement a specific contention as regards acquisition of the plot has been raised. He, therefore, submitted that a clear issue of jurisdiction arises which needs to be decided. 4 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is no challenge in this petition to the decree on merits. The challenge is only on the basis of submissions which are canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perusal of the original written statement filed by the petitioner to the suit of the year 1995 shows that the property of the landlord was acquired in the year 1986 by the Karad Municipal Council by giving notice and the Municipal Council was likely to take possession and therefore the respondents had represented to the petitioner that the petitioner need not pay the rent but the petitioner should make efforts to ensure that the property is not acquired. The 1 st respondent was examined as a witness on 11 th August 2000. The suggestion given to the 1 st respondent is that in the year 1986 he had received a notice of acquisition and therefore a suit was jointly filed by the petitioner and the 1 st respondent for challenging the notice. In the cross-examination there is not even a suggestion given that the acquisition was completed or that the property vested in the Municipal Council. Admittedly, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in the suit for establishing his case regarding the acquisition of the property. What was produced before the trial 5 Court by the petitioner was a copy of the plaint in the suit earlier filed by the petitioner and the 1 st respondent. 5. The two civil applications have been filed in the year 2008 in which reliance is sought to be placed on a draft notification dated 19 th May 1986 which purports to record that the Town Planning Scheme No.I has been sanctioned. Exhibit A to Civil Application No.2332 of 2008 is the said draft notification. Exhibits B and C annexed to the said Civil Application are the redistribution and valuation statements. None of these three documents show that the original plot held by the landlords has been vested in the Municipal Council. The other civil application Nos.2333 of 2008 is for seeking amendment of the written statement for incorporating the averments regarding the aforesaid three documents. 6. Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no explanation in both the applications as to why the petitioner could not produce these documents which were in existence even in the year 1986, these documents do not establish that the property vests in the Municipal Council. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that at any time the property vested in the Municipal 6 Council. Apart from this, it is too late in the day to raise such a contention. 7. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. Civil Application Nos.2332 of 2008 and 2333 of 2008 are also rejected. 8. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, ad-interim relief granted by this Court will continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)