1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6473 OF 2009 Ramchandra Vishwanath Shingote .. Petitioner versus Pushpalata Ghanashyam Pardeshi .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Lagu for the petitioner. Mr.Sachin Chaudhari h/f Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the opponent in an application filed by the respondent under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The application has been filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had entered in the suit premises as a licensee and after revocation of licence, he has not vacated the suit premises. There were two applications filed by the petitioner before the competent authority. The first application filed by the petitioner before the competent authority praying for stay under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the proceedings of the application before the competent authority on the ground that a civil suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent for injunction is pending the Civil Court. The second application contained a prayer for trying the issue 2 of jurisdiction already framed by the competent authority as a preliminary issue. Both the applications have been rejected by the competent authority by passing the impugned order. The competent authority, however, observed that issue of jurisdiction will be decided alongwith the other issues. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that consistent with the principles laid down under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the issue of jurisdiction ought to have been tried as a preliminary issue. He submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioner injunction has been claimed restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner without following due process of law. He submitted that as the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 24 of the said Act of 1999, filing of the said application by the respondent does not amount to adopting a due process of law. 3. After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that there is no merit in the contentions. Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 contemplates summary disposal of applications under section 24 of the said Act. Section 39 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the Chapter and Rules made thereunder will have over-riding effect. Section 43 prescribes a special procedure for disposal of the applications under 3 section 24. Clause (c) of sub-section 4 of section 43 provides that the competent authority will make an endeavour to decide the application within a period of six months from the order granting leave to contest the application. 4. In the present case, the issue of jurisdiction has been already framed. Considering the scheme of provisions incorporated in Chapter VIII of the said Act of 1999, the competent authority was justified in taking a view that the issue of jurisdiction will be considered and decided alongwith the other issues as hearing of the application has already commenced and the same is pending for cross-examination of the respondent. 5. As far as prayer under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is concerned, it is obvious that section 10 of the said Code will not have any application to the application under section 24 of the said Act of 1999. In any event, the respondent had adopted due process of law by filing an application under section 24 of the said Act of 1999. If the competent authority is satisfied that the application made by the respondent is not maintainable, the same is bound to be rejected. 6. No case for interference is made out. Petition is rejected. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)