IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4899/2008 Jogindersingh D.Saigal Petitioner Vs. Mrs.Rekha M. Bhambhani Respondent Mr.V.G.Mehta, advocate for petitioner Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni advocate for the respondent 1 to 3 Coram : A.M.Khanwilkar,J. Date :15/7/2008 P.C. 1] Heard counsel for the petitioner. The first grievance made before me is that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is gratituous licensee and for which reason the competent authority has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the proceeding, has not been addressed by the Court below. There is nothing in the impugned judgment to indicate that such specific pleas was taken by 2 the petitioner that he was only a gratituous licensee .That is a question of fact to be agitated before the court of first instance. 2] The counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of our High Court dt.1.8.2008 passed on W.P.no.8194/07 to contend that the petitioner was entitled to raise the issue of jurisdiction of the competent authority and the authority was obliged to answer the same .This decision is of no avail to the petitioner .For the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioner herein on an erroneous assumption that possession of the suit premises in terms of license executed by the father of respondent no.1 who represented himself as owner of the premises was not paying any compensation therefor. This argument clearly overlooks that the petitioner in fact was inducted in the suit property on the basis of a license which was renewed from time to time .The petitioner admittedly paid compensation amount as specified in the said license agreement till the license period expired in terms of the Agreement . The possession of the petitioner continued after expiry of license period without paying any compensation does not mean that the petitioner was inducted as a gratituous licensee. .The initial entry of the petitioner in the suit premises is plainly as a licensee for consideration. Thus, the argument that the petitioner is a gratituous licensee is an argument of desparation . 3] The counsel for the petitioner would then contend that the 3 petitioner has specifically raised this grievance before the Court below which can be discerned from the points of argument. There is nothing in the writ petition to suggest that the petitioner had in fact argued this specific issue before the lower Court at the time of argument . Even on fair reading of averments in para 6 onwards there is nothing in the petition to suggest that the petitioner has raised each of the points recorded in the points of arguments at the time of oral arguments before that court .It is not unknown that although several points are raised in the appeal memo or the points of arguments,however, the Advocate would cofine to only selected points during oral arguments. If the advocate had not argued the stated point,the court cannot be blamed for not dealing with that point though referred to in the points of arguments. Be that as it may for the reason already recorded in the earlier part of this order , the grievance of the petitioner is devoid of merits. 4] Significantly,the order of eviction has already been effected. That takes me to the next contention of the petitioner that the execution of the order of eviction was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C.. Once again no specific ground has been taken in this behalf in the writ petition. Inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the advocate for the petitioner, he is not in a position to point out even one ground taken in writ petition to pursue the argument about irregularity in execution of decree of eviction . 4 The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reliefs claimed in the petition are too wide and will also cover the argument of irregularity in the execution of the decree . This argument does not commend to me.. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take the opposite party by surprise by raising grounds for the first time across the Bar. And especially when no foundation of relevant and material facts as to how and in what manner the execution of the order of eviction can be said to be irregular or improper has been made out in the petition. In the circumstances there is no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction . Dismssed. (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)