1 WP No.8929/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8929 of 2010 (i) Shivaji Sardarsingh Rajput @ Shivaji Sarjerao Rupnar (ii) Shankar Sardarsingh Rajput @ Shankar Sarjerao Rupnar ... Petitioners versus (i) Amol Vishnupant Mahindrakar ... Respondent ... Mr. A.A. Valsangkar for the petitioners CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 22nd February 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 27 August 2010 passed below Exhibit 37 rejecting an application for review. The petitioner has also challenged the original order dated 6 August 2010 which was subjected to the review. 2 WP No.8929/10 2. The respondent is a decree holder and petitioners are judgment debtors. In a suit for eviction of a tenant, a decree for possession of the suit premises was passed by the trial court and was confirmed by the appellate court and revision application against the judgment of the appellate court was dismissed by this court. Respondent thereafter filed an execution petition for execution of the decree. The execution was resisted by the petitioners by filing an application in the execution proceedings contending that the decree was without jurisdiction. On the date of hearing of the application, the petitioners remained absent. The court however considered the application and dismissed the application on merits. Petitioners applied for review of the order. That application has also been rejected. Hence, petitioners are before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit premises were open land and therefore, the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short “Rent Act”) were not applicable to the suit premises. He therefore submitted that the Rent Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the decree was without jurisdiction. Assuming that the Rent Act is not applicable, the decree could be passed under the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, the tenancy was terminated and the lease was not in existence on the date of the suit. Thereafter, a suit for possession was filed in the Civil Court. Civil Court, which incidentally also has a jurisdiction to entertain a suit for 3 WP No.8929/10 possession under the Rent Act, has a jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for possession against a lessee whose lease has been terminated. As the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for possession even under the Transfer of Property Act and pass a decree, it cannot be said that the decree is without jurisdiction. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pray that the interim protection which was previously granted by this court vide order dated 10 December 2010 be extended for some time. It is accordingly directed that the possession warrant shall not be executed for a period of two weeks from today. (D.G.KARNIK, J)