IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 199 OF 2008 Mohd. Salim Abubakar Shaikh... ...... ......Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra .... ...... ......Respondent. Mr.K.D.Jha, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, AGP For the respondent. CORAM: BILLA NAZKI AND A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. 3.4.08 PC: Heard learned counsel for respective parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order of eviction served on him by the Controller of Accommodation. It appears that the property is under requisition of the Government and the Government wants to hand it over back to the landlords. The petitioner claims that he has purchased the property from one of the landlords which is not a fact. He has annexed a declaration which is not an instrument of alienation of property. This declaration merely states that one Abdul Rehman Naik who was himself a tenant had given up his rights of tenancy in favour of the petitioner. As such on his own showing the petitioner has no right or title to claim possession of the property in question but still he wants this Court to 1 protect him as respondents have violated the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. He relies on sections 8-C, 9 and 13 of the said act. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the respondents want to release the property from requisition and hand over to the landlords in terms of section 9 and as such any steps taken by the respondent for release of the property was for legal purpose and the landlords were entitled to possession of the property after it was released by the Government as the Government was also bound to give possession back to the landlords free from any encumbrances. As regards violation of sections 8-C and 13 that notices were not given or the order was not served the respondents have claimed in their affidavit that as a matter of fact the wife of the petitioner is in possession of the property and she was served with the orders and she has acknowledged the said orders. As such we do not find any merit in this petition. Petitioner is holding over the possession without any right or reason. Writ petition appears to be misconceived hence the same stands dismissed. 28.3.08 2