1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 410 OF 2008 Smt. Gayatridevi wd/o Narayanprasad Pande & ors. v. Purushottam s/o Ramlal Shukla ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. C.S. Kaptan Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.N. Kendurkar Advocate for Res. ..... CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 12 th OCTOBER, _2010. PRONOUNCED ON ; 20 .10.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in the present appeal. (i) The judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai – (2003) 6 SCC 675 being of larger Bench ought to have been followed in preference to the judgment in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil – 2010 (7) SCALE 428, while deciding L.P.A. No. 150 of 2010 (Kalpesh Hemanbhai Shah v. Manhar Auto Stores) by this Court. (ii) The orders under challenge in the present letters patent appeal are made by quasi 2 judicial authorities under C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 and not by Civil Courts as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and therefore a writ of certiorari could be issued and consequently it is to be deemed that learned Single Judge has exercised the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the present letters patent appeal is maintainable. In support of the above submissions, Mr.Khapre cited several decisions. 2. We have consciously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant so also the various decisions cited. At the outset, we quote below para 83 of the judgment in the case of Shalini Shetty, supra, (83) For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. The course adopted by the High Court cannot be approved.” 3. Perusal of above para 83 shows that the conclusion drawn by the apex court while deciding the case of Shalini Shetty, namely, that no writ petition in a 3 dispute between landlord and tenant should be entertained. Relying further on the decision in Shalini's case, we have further held that it is only application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that could at the most be entertained but then that too within the parameters stated in para 62 of the said decision. 4. The three Judge Bench judgment referred by Mr.Khapre in the case of Surya Dev Rai, supra, was also considered in the case of Shalini Shetty and it is held therein that insofar as the ratio of the judgment in relation to application under Article 227 is concerned, there was no conflict whatsoever. In these backgrounds, we do not agree with Mr.Kaptan that the issue involved in the present appeal regarding dispute between landlord and tenant can be said to be governed by Surya Dev Rai's case and not by Shalini Shetty's case. In our opinion, Shalini Shetty's case is direct answer in relation to the dispute between the landlord and tenant qua writ petition. We therefore reject the first submission. 5. As to the second submission, we find that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was brought into force by way of substitution/addition for the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 in the Vidarbha region. In our opinion, whether or not the orders are to be passed by quasi judicial authority or a Small Cause Court or Civil Court would hardly be relevant since there is a substitution of quasi judicial authorities acting under Rent Control Order 1949 by 4 Civil Courts. Fact remains that the dispute essentially is between landlord and tenant. We, therefore, reject the second submission also. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in the present LPA. It is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/