1 W.P. 3934/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3934/2011 NANDKUMAR SHNKARRAO RASNE VS. GIRISH DHARMVIR MADAN AND OTHERS Mr. B.S. Shinde h/f Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30th June, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 12th October, 2010 on Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 267/2009, passed by Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar, permitting the respondent No.1 / plaintiff to carry out tenantable repairs to the suit shop. 2. It is common ground that in earlier litigation which went up to the High Court, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff was injuncted from carrying out even tenantable repairs to the suit sop without taking permission of the present petitioner / defendant No.1, subject to provisions of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act. This order is still in force. The present suit is filed for declaration of ownership etc. of the suit shop. During the pendency of this suit, the respondent No.1 / plaintiff made this application and sought permission of the learned Civil Judge for causing repairs to the shop. The learned judge was made aware of the earlier order in which there is a specific mention 2 W.P. 3934/2011 that the repairs can be carried out either after taking permission of the petitioner / defendant No.1 or subject to the provisions of The Rent Control Act. The learned judge rightly observed that in view of the hostility between the parties, the petitioner / defendant No.1 would not permit tenantable repairs. He therefore, opined that permission for repairs should be granted because if such permission is refused, it would cause irreparable loss to the respondent No.1 / plaintiff. The learned judge however, blissfully ignored the above mentioned part of the order which permitted repairs through the provisions of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The provisions of section 14 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act are completely ignored. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff could have certainly taken recourse to these provisions before making the present application. In view of this, the impugned order is grossly erroneous. The petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff is given liberty to take steps as indicated above. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/June30/wp3934.11