1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2009 Sakharam Sadashiv Paradkar. ..Petitioner V/s. Smt.Ranjana R. Sawant & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.A.Sawant for petitioner. Mr.G.S.Bhat for respondent No.1. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 29, 2009. : APRIL 29, 2009. : APRIL 29, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. First point argued by the Petitioner is that the impugned decision is vitiated on account of the fact that Tribunal recorded reasons in support of its decision after lapse of over 11 months. This plea is specifically raised in paragraph-9A of the Writ Petition, as amended. The argument will have to be stated to be rejected. The Petitioner has not been able to establish the fact that the reasons were recorded after 11 months from the date of pronouncing the Judgment. On the other hand, operative order passed by the Tribunal is dated 4th April, 2008. So also the reasoned Judgment produced at pages 31A to 2 31M would indicate that the same is dated 4th April, 2008. The argument of the Petitioner is founded on the date on which the certified copy of the said order has been issued, which is stated to be 13th March, 2009. The fact that certified copy has been issued on 13th March, 2009 does not mean that the reasons were recorded by the Tribunal on that date. Suffice it to observe that the plea taken by the Petitioner is ill-advised and unsubstantiated. 3. On merits, the argument of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 was not the owner of the suit property. That fact has been noted by the Collector in his Order dated 14th September, 2005. However, this argument does not take the matter any further for the Petitioner in the wake of finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that the Respondent No.1 had produced copy of Index-II and P.R. card on record which establish the fact that the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the property. Correctness of the said Index-II and P.R. card or the contents thereof have not been questioned by the Petitioner. In other words, issue of ownership in respect of the suit property has been rightly answered in favour of the Respondent No.1 by the Tribunal. 3 . Significantly, the impugned decision considers the application preferred by the Respondent No.1 for permission to institute suit against the Petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent. In this application, the limited question is to consider whether such permission ought to be granted. The Collector refused the permission on the sole reasoning that the Respondent No.1 was not the owner of the property, which finding has been justly overturned by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in granting permission to the Respondent No.1 for instituting the suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the Petitioner. Needless to observe that all questions in the said suit on facts and law will have to be answered on its own merit in accordance with the law. 4. Petition dismissed on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)