{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7781 OF 2010 Channappa s/o Panchappa Chinchansure Petitioner Versus Manisha w/o Dhanraj Bolshette Respondent Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, advocate for petitioner Mr.T.M.Venjane, advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Jain, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 01 st October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 The order passed by Ad hoc District Judge-1, Nilanga on 20.07.2010 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.11/2010, is subject matter of challenge in this petition presented by petitioner – original defendant. 2 Respondent – original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.350/2009 claiming decree against the defendant not to evict the plaintiff out of possession of the suit premises without following procedure prescribed by law. It is the contention of plaintiff that she is in possession of the suit property on the basis of rent note alleged to have been executed on 01.09.2004 for a period of 12 years in favour of her husband. On demise of her husband, plaintiff has succeeded and continued her possession {2} over the suit property. During his life time, her husband was running a grocery shop and said business is being looked after by the plaintiff after demise of her husband. 3 Defendant has denied the contentions raised by plaintiff so also execution of alleged rent note. It is contended that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property in her capacity as tenant and she is not running the grocery shop. 4 The trial Court, after considering rival contentions, proceeded to reject the application tendered by plaintiff. An Appeal was preferred by original plaintiff, being Misc. Civil Appeal No.11 of 2010, which came to be heard and disposed of by Ad hoc District Judge-1, Nilanga, who, by his order dated 20.07.2010, was pleased to allow the appeal and defendant is restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property till decision of the suit. 5 There is evidence placed on record before the trial Court by the plaintiff in respect of her running a grocery shop. There are also receipts in respect of payment of taxes placed on record apart from the alleged rent note. Considering the evidence placed on record, the first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff in respect of her possession over the suit property and that she is not entitled to be evicted without following procedure prescribed by {3} law. The copy of certificate dated 23.12.2005, issued under Section 5 of the Maharashtra State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1975, in respect of shop is also placed on record. The entry in the village panchayat record in respect of suit premises is noted as shop and godown. It is not the case of defendant that defendant himself is running any shop or that the plaintiff is running the grocery shop in some other premises. In these circumstances, the view adopted by the first appellate Court appears to be reasonable and proper. There is no merit in the petition. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. The trial Court is, however, directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp778110