MP 1 WP1191_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1191 OF 2011 M/s. Hermes Developers and others ... Petitioners Versus Vispi Burjor Mistry ... Respondent Mr. D. D. Madan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Balsara, Ms. S. Vedpathak i/b. Maneksha & Sethna for Petitioners. Mr. Vyankatesh A. Shastry and Mr. M. K. Irani for Respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 06, 2011 P. C. : By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 1st December 2010 vide which an appeal filed by the respondent - plaintiff challenging the order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent - plaintiff, came to be allowed. 2. In a suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff, an application came to be filed for temporary injunction. The plaintiff claiming that he was in possession of the suit premises, in apprehension of dispossesion had prayed for an interim injunction to protect his possession. The learned Trial Court rejected the application. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted the injunction as prayed for. However, while allowing the appeal, the learned Trial Court has observed that the MP 2 WP1191_11 impugned order will not have any effect if the defendants seek the appropriate remedies before the Court of Law for eviction of the plaintiff by due process of law. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there are various observations made by the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal, which would prejudice the rights of the petitioners in the eviction proceedings that are pending before the competent authority, being application Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of 2009 under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (“said Act” for short). 4. Since the observations made by the learned Appellate Court are restricted only for the purpose of considering as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunction or not, by no stretch of imagination, they can be said to have any bearing on the dispute between the present petitioners and the respondent in the proceedings under the said Act. The competent authority vested with the powers under the said Act would be required to decide the applications of the petitioners on its own merits. 5. Needless to state that the observations made by the learned Appellate court in the order impugned, will have no bearing on the matter in dispute before the competent authority under the said Act. 6. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with aforesaid observations. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the competent authority under the said Act is directed to expedite the hearing of the applications. (B.R. GAVAI, J)