-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2509 OF 2008 Oasis Engineering P.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. S.Kumar Nationwide Ltd. & anr. ...Respondents Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b M/s.RMG Law Associates Mr.Prashant Chavan i/b M/s.Little and Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MAY 2, 2008. : MAY 2, 2008. : MAY 2, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. A Revision application preferred by the Respondents under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The said Revision application is directed against the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority on an application under section 24 of the said Act of 1999. By the order impugned dated 17th March 2008, the learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division admitted the revision application and passed an ad-interim order of status quo till the next date. The said order of status quo is now extended till 9th June 2008. -2- 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even assuming that that a case for granting ad-interim or interim relief was made out by the Respondents, the learned Additional Commissioner ought to have imposed suitable conditions regarding deposit of amount. The submission is that without imposing any condition, an ad-interim order of status quo has been passed. 4. Now, the revision application has been kept on 9th June 2008. It is obvious from the order dated 17th March 2008 that the order of status quo is only an ad-interim order. The learned Additional Commissioner will have to consider and decide the prayer for stay made by the Respondents after hearing the petitioner. At the time of hearing of prayer for stay, all the contentions which are raised by the Petitioner in this petition can be urged before the learned Additional Commissioner. 5. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to entertain this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. However, a direction will have to be issued to the learned Additional Commissioner to hear the parties and to pass an appropriate order on the prayer for stay as expeditiously as possible. 6. Hence, I pass the following order : -3- i) The learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division will decide the prayer/application for stay made by the Respondents after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st July 2008. ii) All contentions which are raised by the petitioner in this petition can be raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the prayer for stay. iii) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are expressly kept open. iv) Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE