1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3624 OF 2010. Jitendrakumar Kamlachand Banode. -: VERSUS :- Dilip Jagannath Banode Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 12, 2010. Heard Shri P.A. Abhyankar, learned Counsel for petitioner. Contention is, petitioner/defendant is in possession because of agreement of purchase at Exh.44. From the date of that agreement rent has not been paid and hence, possession must be presumed to be in part performance. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of this Court reported at 2005 [4] Mh.L.J. 424 (Abbas Kasam Naddaf (since deceased through L./Rs.Smt. Anwar Abbas .vrs. Sayyad Mohiddin saheb 2 Jamadar and others). He further states that, this question of status of petitioner has not been gone into by the learned Trial Court. I have perused the judgment delivered by the Appellate Court with the assistance of learned Counsel. The Appellate Court has found that there is nothing on record to show the status of petitioner as tenant underwent any change in the light of the agreement Exh.44. The agreement is also found to be in dispute. The learned Counsel has contended that the facts of the present matter are identical with the facts in the reported judgment. The facts in reported judgment show that there, the agreement was dated 27.02.1959 and rent was not paid till 18.03.1974. The fact show that for over 15 years rent was not paid and there was no attempt also to recover the rent. Here the position is otherwise. The petitioner has filed written statement before the trial Court and has no where contended that nature of his possession underwent any change and there was no obligation to pay rent after the date of alleged agreement at Exh.44. It is also not his 3 contention that there was any oral agreement not to pay rent. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong with the appreciation of controversy by the Appellate Court. No case is made out warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.