1 (WP349.2011 WITH CAW103.2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2011 Sau Shalini Dattatray Mule & Ors. ....Petitioners v/s Santosh Parashram Deore .... Respondents. Mr. Mohit Bhansali for the Petitioners. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the Respondents. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11th July, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. Petitioners are original opponents and Respondent is the original applicant. Application was filed by the Respondent herein under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, seeking possession of the suit premises. Petitioners filed their reply and denied the execution of the 2 (WP349.2011 WITH CAW103.2011) said agreement. The contention of the Respondent – original applicant was that the Petitioners sold the property to him by a Sale Deed which was subsequently registered and the said agreement was executed wherein it was agreed by the Petitioners herein that Petitioners would stay in the premises for some time. The case of the Respondent is that compensation which was to be paid was Rs 1000/-. Before the competent authority, in reply, it was contended by the Petitioners that the said agreement was not executed by Petitioner No.1. She also denied execution of the Sale Deed. Both the courts, however, did not accept this contention of the Petitioners and the order of eviction passed by the competent authority was confirmed in revision. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the said agreement was not registered and the said agreement clearly stated in writing that the Petitioner No.1 was a gratuitous licensee. He submitted that though issue of jurisdiction was framed by the competent authority, this issue was not discussed. No reasons were given and the competent authority held that issue of jurisdiction does not arise. He submitted that the lower Appellate Court also has committed the same error and did not discuss the issue of jurisdiction regarding maintainability of the application under section 24 of the said Act. It is further submitted that both the documents were not executed by Petitioner No.1. It is submitted that both the 3 (WP349.2011 WITH CAW103.2011) courts below did not take this fact into consideration. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/original applicant submitted that though, initially, the Sale Deed was not registered, subsequently the document was impounded and it was duly registered. It is submitted that Petitioners herein had taken a specific defense that the document was not executed by Petitioner No.1 and she was the owner of the said premises. The learned Counsel submitted that, accordingly, the issue was framed as to whether the Petitioner No.1 was owner o the suit premises or not and, after going through the evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that Petitioners had not proved that Petitioner No.1 was the owner of the premises and, therefore, the Court held that issue of jurisdiction did not survive. 5. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides at length, in my view, no case is made out for interfering with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. When a query was made by this Court to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners to point out any statement in reply of the Petitioners regarding case of the Petitioner No.1 being a gratuitous licensee, he was unable to point out such statement. It is obvious that what was sought to be argued was not part of the record and, therefore, submission which 4 (WP349.2011 WITH CAW103.2011) was made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners before this Court was never made before the lower Courts and also it is not the part of the record. 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Courts. No case is made out for interfering with the concurrent finding of fact while exercising jurisdiction of this Court in a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. Since Writ Petition itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.103 of 2011 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. 8. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners seeks stay of this order in order to enable him to move the Apex Court. 9. Decree not to be executed during a period of six weeks from today. 10. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5 (WP349.2011 WITH CAW103.2011)