IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO 114 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO 7380 OF 2005 Engineering Export Promotion Council .. Petitioner V/s. Savitri Dueby .. Respondent Mr Vaccha i/b M/s. Meghraj & Associates for the Respondent P.J. Thorat i/b.M/s. Hariani & Co. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATE : 06th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. The argument of Applicant that no protection is available to the Respondent / Writ Petitioner of the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 if accepted, it would necessarily follow that the application filed by the applicant herein before the competent authority for possession of the suit premises under Section 24 of the said Act will be without jurisdiction. In spite of this, applicant is inviting this Court to record the findings at this stage that the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act have no application to the suit premises having regard to the status of writ 1 petitioner relying on decisions of Apex Court referred to in the prayer clause of this application. In my opinion, the present application is ill advised. Hence, rejected. It will be open to the applicant to pursue such other remedy as may be available if so advised . Writ Petition is already expedited in terms of order dated 24.07.2008. Office to process the Writ Petition under category of Senior Citizens as per its turn. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J) 2