1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.284/2011 RAMESH BIDKAR ..VS.. BALJIT JUNEJA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011. None for the petitioner. However, perused the impugned order passed by the Small Causes Court on 22.11.2010 and also the grounds raised in the writ petition. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 22.11.2010, directing the respondent to deposit rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit and shall continue to pay the rent at the same rate in each month. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for direction to the respondent to pay unpaid rent and future mesne profits amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- and further direction to pay future mesne profits on the agreed rent of Rs.30,000/- per month for certain period and then @ Rs.35,000/- per month during the pendency and final disposal of the suit. The court on hearing the parties found that the defendant had paid the rent upto 31.3.2009 and thereafter 2 he was in arrears of rent. In view of the aforesaid position, the trial court rightly in its discretion directed the respondent to deposit the rent @ Rs.25,000/- per month in the court. Since the ownership of the petitioner/ plaintiff was challenged by the defendant in the suit and it was the case of the defendant that the petitioner had no authority to collect the rent, the court ordered that the petitioner shall not withdraw the rent which would be deposited by the respondent in the court till the decision of the suit. There appears to be no error in the order passed by the trial court on 22.11.2010, much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP