1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3295/2011 [Center Point Hospital .vrs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2011. Heard Shri S.S. Voditel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Shri A.G. Gharote, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Shri P.N. Khadgi, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, Shri Jagdale, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 and Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.11. Perused orders of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 3.8.2011 in SLP (Civil) No.21371/2011 and dated 5.8.2011 in SLP (Civil) No.22030/2011. Against cancellation of its lease by respondent no.1, respondent no.2 has already filed 2 Civil Suit, which is pending. In that suit, present petitioner is one of the defendant. The prayer of respondent no.2 for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the Trial Court and that rejection was maintained in appeal against order by the learned Single Judge of this court. SLP against that order has been dismissed on 5.8.2011, however, a positive direction while dismissing appeal against order issued by this Court on 6.5.2011 has been deleted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this background, Advocate Shri Voditel contends that action initiated by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 is altogether a different aspect. Action to be initiated by respondent no.2 against the petitioner as undertaken by it voluntarily before the Hon’ble Apex Court is again a different issue. He contends that the petitioner has entered the possession validly and his user is in accordance with the Development Rules. According to him, as 15% of the property can be put to commercial use, the regularization can still be considered and hence eviction of the petitioner is not the only solution. He contends that lease deed between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 also permits entry of the 3 petitioner into leased premises. In this background, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has got necessary status to maintain this petition and fact that it is joined as defendant in Regular Civil Suit filed by respondent no.2 is not decisive in any way. He, therefore, states that appropriate orders need to be issued to respondent no.1 to look into all these aspects and to take appropriate view on the question of regularization. Advocate Shri Mishra for respondent no.1 is opposing the petition. According to him, all these defences have been raised before Civil Court and in the alternative, he contends that as the petitioner is defendant, it was/is open to him to raise all these pleas before Civil Court. He further argues that user of premises for commercial purposes by the petitioner is not in accordance with law. He further refutes all other contentions. According to him, law must be permitted to take its own course. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 and also of Civil Suit filed by respondent no.2. In that Civil Suit, a written statement in accordance with the advice received is 4 filed by the petitioner. After adverse orders of Civil Court, present petition has been filed raising same contentions. The matter is arising out of contract between respondent no.2 and present petitioner. Respondent no.1 has leased out contract to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 has failed to secure any interim order against respondent no.1 in the matter. It is also apparent that disputed questions also arise in the matter. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande