Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1142 of 2009 Shri Rajesh Pandharinath Nadgire ...Petitioner V/s. Uttareshwar Naganath Chavan ...Respondent Mr. I.S.Thakur for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Appellate Court has wrongly invoked Section 18 of the Rent Act which has no application to the facts of the present case as the amount spent by the Petitioner was in respect of independent contract with the defendant who incidentally happens to be landlord of the premises. There is no substance in this argument. Going by the averments in the plaint and reading the plaint as a whole, it is amply clear that Petitioner-Plaintiff asserted that the Respondent landlord was obliged to carry out necessary changes so as to bring the suit premises in confirmity with the extant Regulations which can be used for the proposed activity of the Petitioner. Going by the said averments 2 it is more than clear that the the expenditure incurred for such work was incidental to the beneficial enjoyment of the suit premises given on rent to the tenant. In other words, work to be undertaken is in relation to such premises is matter between landlord and tenant ascribable to provisions of Rent Act and for which reason the Appellate Court has rightly invoked Section 18 of the Bombay Rent Act to answer the point in issue. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tolaram Tolaram Tolaram Relumal Relumal Relumal V/s. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1954 (SC) V/s. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1954 (SC) V/s. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1954 (SC) 496. 496. 496. However, on the facts of the present case, the exposition in the said decision will be of no avail to the Petitioner in particular the finding reached by the Court below which has been upheld in terms of this Order. 5. Hence, dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]