FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/3322/2011 KANHOO VS CHANDULAL ... 1. Heard Shri A.S.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner / tenant. 2. The trial Court, before which the suit for eviction was going on, has framed additional issue on 20.4.2011 and the issue reads; "Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have made willful default in payment of agreed rent ?" The learned Counsel argued that the petitioner/tenant did not get an opportunity to lead the evidence as standard rent is not fixed. The grievance about the petitioner being defaulter is mis-conceived and the trial Court ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity before framing the issue. It is further urged that as the standard rent is not fixed the suit itself is not maintainable. 3. On 21.4.2011, the petitioner has made an application for deleting the issue Nos.2 and 2A. The other side has given say upon it and after hearing both counsel, the trial Court has rejected that prayer. That order dated 25.4.2011 is questioned before this Court. 4. It is apparent that only the issue is framed and issue is yet to be answered finally. Issue No.2 as already framed, has put a burden on the plaintiffs to prove the arrears of payment and outstanding rent. The contentions before this Court are, therefore, mis-conceived, FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) WP/3322/2011 at least at this stage. Parties had already lead evidence on issue No.2 and its re-framing as such is not demonstrated to be needing any more evidence. Contentions being raised will be answered by the trial Court in its judgment and the petitioner can question that judgment on all available grounds. 5. Writ Petition stands rejected. No order as to costs. Dt.29.4.2011 (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) akl