FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 1 Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. --- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. An application requesting the court to frame an issue in respect of tenancy of the petitioner and refer the same to the competent authority, has been turned down by the trial court, in view of the order passed on 1st February, 2010. The same is under challenge in the instant petition. 2. A suit is presented by the plaintiff/petitioner claiming specific performance of agreement. The plaintiff/petitioner has averred in the plaint that before the execution of the agreement to sale, she was already in possession of the property on the basis of oral Batai agreement. The plaintiff has vaguely stated about the particulars of the tenancy in para.2 of the plaint. She contends that she was put in possession some 10 years prior to the agreement on oral Batai basis. The contents stated in para. 2(c) of the plaint have been denied by the defendant. The plaintiff wants the trial court to frame an FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 2 issue in respect of her tenancy and refer the same to the tenancy court. 3. The contents noted in the plaint in respect of tenancy of the plaintiff are not sufficient to cause reference of the issue to tenancy court. Apart from this, the suit presented by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement on the basis of the agreement to sale executed in her favour. Possession of the plaintiff is on the basis of the said agreement, after its execution and not in pursuance to the Batai agreement. Apart from this aspect, there is absolutely no material placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate her contention in respect of the oral tenancy. The trial court was, therefore, justified in turning down the application presented by the plaintiff/petitioner for framing an issue in this regard . I do not find any error in the reasoning recorded by the trial court while rejecting the application so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J.] grt/- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders. 3