-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3412 OF 2008. ( Ramdas Krishnarao Saroade .vrs. Smt. Nrmala Shamrao Nandanwar ) WRIT PETITION No. 3354 OF 2008. ( Ramdas Krishnarao Saroade .vrs. Smt. Nrmala Shamrao Nandanwar ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 3, 2008. Challenge in these petitions filed by the landlord is to the orders passed below Exh.5 and Exh. 13. By Exh.5 the respondent / tenant sought restraining orders apprehending forcible dispossession and according to her as she was dispossessed on 30.11.2006, application seeking mandatory temporary injunction i.e. for restoration of possession was filed. Both the applications were allowed by the trial Court by common order dated. 30.11.2007. The petitioner / landlord then filed Misc. Civil Appeals against that order vide Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 107 and 108 of 2007. Those Misc. -2- Civil Appeals have been dismissed by the Adhoc District Judge-I, Akola on 21.07.2008 by common judgment. The present petition is directed against that order. Heard Shri Ghare, learned counsel for petitioner. He contends that the deceased Shyamrao [husband of respondent] was the original tenant and he handed over possession voluntarily on 7.10.2006, but he expired on 23.10.2006. The suit thereafter came to be filed on 29.11.2006 by his wife complaining about apprehended forcible dispossession and it was amended later on i.e. on 20.12.2006 to complain that between the night of 29.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 the landlord forcibly dispossessed them. Advocate Shri Ghare, further contends that Exh.5 was not granted by that time and the mode and manner in which the application has been moved clearly show that it was by way of after thought. He points out that on 8.12.2006 an application was moved before the J.M.F.C. Akola for getting the property from tenanted block on supratnama. He therefore, states that the respondent is acting malafidely in the matter. Advocate Shri S.M. Bhangde, on the other hand argues that both the Courts have -3- concurrently held in favour of the tenant and material was handed over to police on 30.11.2006 itself by landlord. After hearing the parties, I find that though it is claimed that deceased Shyamrao surrendered the possession in favour of the landlord on 7.10.2006, there is no document evidencing the same. Similarly, there is no document filed by the present petitioner to show that after 7.10.2006 they have used the tenanted premises for own purpose. They are relying upon affidavits of adjacent shop keepers that Shamrao voluntarily surrendered possession. The fact remains, that the articles in shop were in petitioner's court yard till 30.11.2006 and on 30.11.2006 police machinery just for asking, has accepted the delivery thereof from the landlord. It is therefore apparent that the appellant has prima facie failed to show that possession was handed over voluntarily on 7.10.2006. Infact no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petitions are therefore, dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Advocate Shri Ghare, states that interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition should be continued for further period of two weeks. -4- Advocate Shri Bhangde, has no objection. In the circumstances, the said interim order is continued till 20.10.2008 and shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE Rgd.