dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3910 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3910 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3910 OF 2008 Smt.Kusumbai Kisan Patil Petitioner Vs. Smt.Shobha Shashikant Kirve Respondent. Mr.A.M.Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr.P.B.Shah for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th December 2008. : 16th December 2008. : 16th December 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner, who is claiming to be tenant, has filed suit for declaration that she is tenant of respondent in respect of three rooms situated on ground floor and one room on the first floor in house no.870, Somwar Peth, Talegaon Dabhade, Dist.Pune She is claiming tenancy rights in pursuance to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, ‘Rent Act‘) and thereby she is also claiming consequential relief, including injunction against the respondents from taking possession of her tenanted premises without following due procedure of law. 2. The case appears that she is claiming to be in possession of the premises since more than 40 to 45 years. The respondents purchased the property some ( 2 ) time in the year 1979. The fact remained that when the suit was filed in the year 2004 the so-called rooms were already demolished/destroyed as recorded & that since 1999 itself she was not in occupation and therefore on the date of suit at least she was not in occupation as the premises were not in existence. The relief so sought therefore on the date of suit itself could not have been granted and, therefore, rightly considered by both the courts on merits as well as on the ground of delay and latches. The contention that there was lease of land with the so-called rooms and, therefore, she is entitled to have all protection as contemplated under the Rent Act. This facet need detailed enquiry and evidence. So far as the present suit is concerned,both the courts are right in rejecting the application as prayed, on the ground of delay; latches, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Whether the petitioner/plaintiff has right or not that need to be gone into. If the suit is decreed as prayed and/or plaintiff proves her case she is entitled to get benefits in accordance with law. That facet, in the present facts and circumstances, at this stage, just cannot be gone into to grant the relief as prayed. 3. The Court has already observed ‘the plaintiff can ( 3 ) claim her right in newly constructed building, if any,‘. This is always subject to the decision of the suit. 4. Taking all this into account, I see there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. 5. The submission that the landlord should be directed to keep vacant two or three rooms also cannot be considered at this stage as unless her rights are decided finally in the suit, no such relief can be granted in the matter. 6. Therefore, taking all this into account,I see there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by both the courts below. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)