IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1289 OF 2009 Rajendra Kondiram Mutha ...Petitioner V/s. Smt.Mahananda E.Satpute & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. According to the Petitioner, the ground for eviction that the Defendant has sufficient alternate accommodation is not available in the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, for which reason, issue No.3 could not have been framed. This grievance can always be made before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage when the Trial Court will have to address the same. According to the : 2 : Petitioner, the impugned order does not give that liberty to the Petitioner. 3. Needless to observe that if the tenant having acquired alternate accommodation is not a ground available for eviction in the provisions of Rent Act, the question of proceeding with the trial on that issue will not arise. That is a matter which will have to be considered by the Trial Court appropriately. 4. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted, save and except what has been observed above. Disposed of accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.