1 wp6625.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 6625 OF 2011 Sau. Manjiri W/o Madan Kolangade and others. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS ...... Shri P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Shri S.R. Vakil, advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent no.1-State. Smt. Manjusha Despande, advocate for respondent no.2. Shri Dhananjay Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.3 ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 5th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioners have filed a simplicitor suit for injunction against the present respondents from interfering and obstructing into the peaceful possession and also seeking injunction restraining the respondents from causing damage and destruction to the structure of the suit shops and from obstructing in conducting repairs of the suit shops. Along with the suit, the petitioners also filed application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved 2 wp6625.11 thereby, the petitioners filed Misc. Civil Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the said appeal. The petitioners assail the said judgment in the present Writ Petition. 2. Shri P.M. Shah, the learned Senior counsel instructed by Shri. Vakil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are the tenants of the suit premises. Because of overt act on the part of the land lord, the portion of the suit premises was damaged and the petitioners would restrict the prayer to the extent of carrying out the repairs of the rooftop. The learned Senior counsel contends that the said relief is inherent in the suit and the said relief is equitable relief, this Court can consider about the said aspect. All the documents are placed on record, so also the order passed by the Municipal Corporation. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that even in the other suits filed by the landlord against other tenants, it was observed by the Court that it is because of the acts of commissions of landlord the damage was caused. According to the learned Senior Counsel the issue of road widening is not germain to the decision of the present matter, in as much as, there is no notice to the present petitioners in regard to the same. 3. Shri Dhananjay Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the 3 wp6625.11 respondent no.3 and Smt. Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 support the orders passed by the Courts below. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the pleadings and orders passed. Basically, the suit filed by the petitioners is simplicitor for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession and from causing obstructions in their possession and creating any obstructions in carrying out the repairs. It does not transpire from the whole pleadings that the petitioners have assailed the order of the Municipal Corporation rejecting the application of the petitioners seeking permission to repair the premises. When the Competent Authority under the Statute had rejected the application of the petitioners from carrying out the repairs, I do not think, the Trial Court has committed error while passing the order. Even the petitioners have not assailed the order of the Competent authority. In such circumstances, such prayer sought by the petitioners to allow them to carry out the repairs in respect of the roof top cannot be considered. 5. At this stage, the learned Senior counsel Shri. Shah submits that the petitioners may move an application for amendment making necessary prayers. If the petitioners make 4 wp6625.11 such an application for amendment, the Trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits. If the trial Court allows the amendment, thereafter, the petitioners are at liberty to file afresh application in respect of the relief about the repairs the said application shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations. There is no order as to costs. It is submitted that the order of status-quo as against the Municipal Corporation was in force till the disposal of the appeal by the District court. The said order would continue for further period of two weeks from today. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 6625.11