1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4813 OF 2010 (Ejaj Khan Yusuf Khan & Others) -: VERSUS :- (M/s Al-Basheer Restaurant & Others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. V. Purohit Adv for petitioners. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 1, 2010. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner tenant filed application before 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati for direction to respondent-plaintiff to state the exact nature of proceedings being prosecuted by him. According to him the proceedings can be either under Maharashtra Rent Control Order 1999 or then against a person in wrongful possession on the basis of forfeiture i.e. on the strength of the title of the respondent. Both proceedings cannot go together. Shri Purohit learned counsel states that in proceedings under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Clause 16(1)(g) is invoked and respondents claim that premises are needed by them bonafide. This therefore assumes 2 relationship of landlord and tenant. However, at the same time respondent landlord has also pointed out forfeiture under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act and that plea has been added by amendment. The suit therefore becomes a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title and relationship of landlord and tenant becomes irrelevant. Hence the respondent is required to elect one of the two causes. The trial Court has considered all relevant aspects in the impugned order and I do not notice any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Petitioner is given opportunity to challenge said order after final adjudication in the civil suit. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE SVK