1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10412 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10412 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mantri for Petitioner Judgment Debtor, Advocate Shri Patni for Respondent Municipal Council/ Decree Holder. Shri Mantri has contended, in Regular Civil Appeal, filed by the Petitioner, and arising out Mesne Profit proceedings, the Petitioner wanted to produce a document of determination of rent of adjacent premises by Municipal Council only. The document came to his knowledge lateron i.e. in 2009 and, thereafter, the application came to be filed. Application has been erroneously rejected by the Appellate Court. According to learned counsel, the rent of adjacent premises is decided by the Committee in accordance with section 92 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and hence that document has got bearing on the issue. He further 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10412 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. states that in similar challenge by another tenant, which is pending, the municipal Council fairly gave no objection to its production and that document has also been exhibited because of same no objection. He argues that if same no objection is given and document is exhibited as it is a public document, petitioner need not lead any oral evidence. 2. Mr. Patni is not in a position to dispute the fact of no objection and exhibition of same document in matter pertaining to other tenant. He, however, tries to explain by contending that those premises are situated elsewhere and therefore the facts are different. He further states that said no objection was given in proceedings before trial Court and not at Appellate stage. 3. After hearing parties, I find that the fair rent of its own premises are decided by 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10412 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the Committee constituted under the Act of 1965 and that document is sought to be produced with contention that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner belatedly. The bonafides of the petitioner, in this respect, are not in dispute. Only contention is, petitioner is trying to delay adjudication of the matter. 4. This nicety can be taken care of by asking the petitioner to show his bonafides by depositing some amount before the Appellate Court. That amount can be kept in deposit by the said Court and can be made over to the party succeeding after the appeal is decided. The rate of rent was Rs.300/- per month and the document in dispute also shows the determination of rent at Rs.300/- per month. Hence, without going further into the rival contentions and only to show bonafides, petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.7,200/- i.e. equivalent to the rent of two 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 10412 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. years, with the Appellate Court by 21st February, 2011. 5. The Appellate Court shall accept the document tendered by petitioner, on record, and if finds that it is a public document or then Municipal Council gives no objection to its exhibition, shall proceed further with hearing of appeal. Hearing of appeal is expedited and the Appellate Court shall attempt to decide it as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. 6. Subject to deposit of Rs.7,200/-, as mentioned above, order passed below Exhibit-25 in R.C.A. No.5 of 2005 by District Judge-7, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The application, as filed, is accordingly allowed. 7. Petition is allowed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:03/02/2011. ans/10412