1 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2029 OF 2011 Kundalik Sakharam Dahibhate ..... Petitioner. v/s Baburao Jakhuji Wakankar (since deceased through Lrs) Pandharinath Baburao Wakankar and Ors ...... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2030 OF 2011 Baban Laxman Bhaigude ..... Petitioner. V/s Baburao Jakhuji Wakankar (since deceased through Lrs) Pandharinath Baburao Wakankar and Ors ...... Respondents. Mr. Madhav Jamdar i/b P.D. Dalvi for Petitioner in both the Petitions. Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for Respondents in both the Petitions. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21st June, 2011 2 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011) P.C.:- 1. Both these Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved in these Petitions are identical. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the leaned Counsel for the Respondent. 3. Petitioners are tenants and Respondent is the landlord. Suit was filed by the landlord seeking possession of the suit premises from both the tenants under section 16(1)(i) and 16(6) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Trial Court decreed the suit. Appeals filed by the Petitioners were dismissed. Thereafter Revision Applications were filed in this Court and the same were also dismissed by a common judgment and Order dated 13/12/2007 passed in CRA No.564 of 2007, CRA No.567 of 2007, CRA No.573 of 2007 and CRA No.574 of 2007. Application was filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Petitioners herein in which it was prayed that the decree holder be directed to take possession of the suit premises till the newly constructed premises is given within 18 months from the date the decree holder receives possession of the old suit premises. The said application was also rejected and it was held that the 3 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011) application under section 47 was not maintainable. Against this order, Petitioner filed Civil Revision Application in the District Court. However, the said Revision Application was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by both the Courts below in execution proceedings, Petitioners have filed these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is submitted that the Respondent has executed decree against one of the tenants on the same ground and after obtaining possession has created third party rights in respect of the premises. It is submitted that there are two other appeals pending in the District Court out of which one appeal is contested and the orders are reserved. It is submitted that if the possession is handed over to the Respondent, great hardship would be caused to the Petitioners herein since the Respondent has stated that as long as he does not obtain possession from other tenants, the building would not be demolished and, thereafter, he would construct a new building. It is submitted that, therefore, the Petitioners may be permitted to continue to be in possession of the premises till final decree is not executed in respect of the other tenants. It is further contended that Respondent may pay an amount of Rs 1500/- per month each to the two Petitioners so that they can acquire the alternative premises till newly constructed premises are 4 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011) handed over. It is further submitted that one of the Petitioners is working in Patpedhi and other is a watchman and that one of the Petitioners is suffering from leukemia and, as such, it will be very difficult for them to find out alternative accommodation. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in view of the provisions of the said Act as long as possession of the entire premises is not received by the landlord, he is under no obligation to reconstruct the premises. It is submitted that frivolous applications are made by the tenants only to prolong the execution of decree. 6. In my view, submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. There is a judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court and this Court. Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated and the objection which was taken by the Petitioners was rejected by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court. No case, therefore, is made out for interfering with the orders passed by both the courts below. 7. A suggestion was made by this Court that the Petitioners may add other tenants as party-respondents and 5 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011) possession may be handed over to the landlord within particular time so that the landlord could reconstruct the premises. The said suggestion, however, was not acceptable to the Petitioners. In my view, apprehension expressed by the Petitioners is misconceived. Petitioners have a remedy which is available to them if premises are not reconstructed as per the provisions of section 16(1)(i) and 16(6). Hence, both these Petitions are dismissed. 8. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Petitioners are given four months time to vacate the premises subject to Petitioners giving an undertaking on usual terms within two weeks from today. 9. Both these Petitions are accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 6 (WP2029.2011 WITH WP2030.2011)