1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2010 M/s Navroz Petroleum .... Applicant Vs. Meherwan Nadirshaw & Ors. .... Respondents. ..... Mr. P.M. Shah, for the Applicant. Mr. S.R. Page, for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 9 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. This Civil Revision Application has been filed by the original Respondent No.2 who was Defendant No.2 in the suit for evicting it from the suit premises. 2. Mr. Shah, appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the lower appellate court while decreeing the suit has failed to advert to fact that the Will in question does not make any mention about the suit property. There is general reference to all the immovable properties owned by the testator with her brother (Respondent No.1). However, bequest in respect of her share is in equal share and the estate is shared by Mrs.Gazdar, who is not a party to the suit. 2 3. In my view, in a suit for eviction which has been filed after termination of the leasehold rights by resorting to section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in law, the Petitioner could not have disputed the title of his landlord or lessor. Further, the Petitioner claims through M/s Bharat Petroleum the original Defendant No.1. M/s Bharat Petroleum has not raised any such plea while defending the claim. Further, that the suit property is not mentioned in the Will is something which could not have gone into and decided by the courts below in their limited jurisdiction. 4. For all these reasons, it is not possible to agree with Shri Shah that the order under challenge suffers from error apparent or perversity. The lower appellate court exercised it’s jurisdiction in accordance with law and it’s finding is in consonance with settled principles. 5. In such circumstances, the civil revision application no.128 of 2010 is dismissed. 6. At this stage, Shri Page pressed for continuation of ad-interim relief granted by this court for a period of twelve weeks so as to enable the Petitioner to challenge the order in the higher court. 7. Having heard Shri Page and Shri Shah at some length, interest of justice would be served if ad-interim order dated 3.12.2009 is continued for a period of eight weeks from today provided the Petitioner in both Petitions do not induct any third party in the suit premises nor shall transfer it in manner during the said period. It is submitted that the 3 possession of the property is with Petitioner in Civil Revision Application No.128 of 20010. The order passed will enure to benefit of this Petitioner as well but he must abide by the above conditions. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)