1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 961/2011 (Vidyaratan Surajlal Thorgavankar & another VERSUS Manakchand Hiralal Kaliwal (Shravgi)) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.V. Bhide, counsel for the petitioners. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the trial Court and the one passed by the District Judge-I, Khamgaon upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for eviction, possession and recovery of damages. It is necessary to note that the respondent had instituted proceedings before the Rent Controller for seeking permission to issue quit notice to the petitioners. The Rent Controller refused to grant the permission. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted the permission to the respondent-landlord and in pursuance of that permission, the landlord instituted a suit for a decree for eviction and possession against the petitioners. The judgment passed by the first appellate Court granting permission in favour of the landlord was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Rent Control appellate authority for considering the appeal filed by the tenants under the Rent 2 Control Order, afresh on merits. Again, the Rent Control Appellate Authority decided the matter in favour of the landlord and granted permission to the landlord to issue the quit notice. The trial Court had passed the conditional decree which was made subject to the decision in the writ petition. The first appellate Court, in an appeal filed by the tenants against the conditional decree for eviction, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants and held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to grant of a decree for eviction. The only ground canvased by the petitioners before the first appellate Court and this Court was that the notice issued by the landlord to the petitioners-tenants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was bad for the reason that the permission granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for redetermining the issue and in such circumstances, after the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted permission on redetermining the matter, it was necessary for the landlord to issue the quit notice and the suit could not have been based on a quit notice, which was issued in pursuance of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which was set aside by the High Court while remanding the matter. This submission was rightly rejected by the first appellate Court as the notice issued by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was based on a permission granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority to issue quit notice to the tenants. Merely because the order was set aside and the matter was remanded, it cannot be said that the landlord was 3 expected to issue a fresh notice to the tenants for determination of his lease after the Rent Control Appellate Authority again granted permission to the landlord, on remand of the matter. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE