-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2053 OF 2004 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2057 OF 2004 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2240 OF2004 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2241 OF 2004 Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. ... ... Petitioners v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.3028 OF 2004 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & anr. .. .. Petitioners v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.R.M.Nakhwa with Mr.V.B.Dhawan for petitioners. Ms.A.K. Savla for respondents-BMC. Mr.A. Sayed, AGP for State. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY 2005 DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY 2005 DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY 2005 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : -2- 1. Heard Mr.Nakhwa in support of these petitions. Ms.Savla appears for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.Sayed, AGP for the State Government. The State Government will be joined as respondent. 2. The dispute in all the above petitions is about the revision in the lease rent effected by the Municipal Corporation’s communication dated 21st March 2003 and the same is challenged. Ms.Savla appearing for the Municipal Corporation states that the Municipal Corporation has received a written communication from the State Government and based thereon, she has instructions to make a statement that this letter dated 21st March 2002 will not be acted upon until further decision is taken by the appropriate Authority. She, however, states that the petitioners should continue to pay the lease rent as per the existing old rates. This satisfies Mr.Nakhwa and in view of the above statement made by Ms.Salva appearing for the Municipal Corporation, he does not press these petitions any more. All the above petitions are disposed of. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) -3- (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)