1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4263/2008 ( Shri Nitin Baburaoji Hivase -: VERSUS :- Takhatmal Shreevallabh Charitable Trust & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 22, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri P.Y. Deshpande for petitioner and Adv. Shri H.B. Jain for respondents. Adv. Shri Deshpande contends that respondent – trust has secured permissions under Clause 13 (3) (7) but has avoided to comply with application under Clause 13 (7). He states that the permissions were obtained against other tenants on same grounds but then till date no construction has been effected. Because of this circumstance, petitioner in Regular Darkhast moved an application seeking time schedule so that within a reasonable time the petitioner will be re-inducted in the new premises. The Executing Court has rejected that application observing that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. He has relied upon several judgments to show that such time schedule is an integral part of the permission to be granted. He further states that the intention of Legislature in that respect has to be seen. Adv. Shri Jain points out that permission granted by Rent Controller has been challenged and has attained 2 finality. Tenancy was then permitted on its strength and the same has become final. In this situation, the permission given to landlord and the order of Rent Controller cannot be modified or then decree passed by the Civil Court also cannot be changed. He states that the trust is trying to secure the possession of adjacent properties from tenants and after possession of entire property comes to trust, appropriate new construction will be done. He assures the Court that trust has no intention to defeat any legal rights of any of the tenants. After hearing the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner could have challenged the permission granted on the ground of absence of time schedule but that permission has attained finality. Even after the civil suit was filed, they have made no efforts to have any such time schedule and decree for eviction has also attained finality. In the circumstances, in regular darkhast for the first time an attempt is being made to procure a time schedule. Adv. Shri Jain has contended that this is done malafidely and only with a view to kill time. I find substance in contentions of Adv. Shri Jain. The efforts which could have been made earlier are being made before Executing Court. I find that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No case is made out to interfere with the same. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.