1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Sharma .. Petitioner versus Bijendra Kumar Jain & Anr. .. Respondents ... Mr.M.P. Vashi for the petitioner Mr.P.S. Dani for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 26th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 5th June 2008 passed by the competent authority, Maharashtra Rent Control, Konkan Division, Mumbai in case No.9 of 1989 on application filed by the petitioner praying for the following 2 reliefs: (a) That the order dt.16.4.2008 to proceed ex-parte may be ordered to be set aside and the respondent may be permitted to cross-examine the applicant. (b) That the respondent may be permitted to lead his own evidence. (c) That permission may be granted to serve the notice to Mr.M.A. Chandan, Advocate appearing for the applicant. 3. In so far as prayer clause (a) of this application is concerned, the court below has already set aside the order dated 16th April 2008 to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. There is no dispute on this position. The second part of prayer clause(a) was that the petitioner herein may be permitted to cross-examine the respondent/applicant. Counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that irrespective of the order passed by the authority below which is impugned in this writ petition, respondent/applicant has no difficulty if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the applicant. The appalicant will make himself available for cross examination. However, the 3 respondent/applicant submits that it is on clear understanding that the petitioner will not insist hereafter for cross examination of any other witness already examined by the applicant. Petitioner through counsel agrees to this condition. In other words, the petitioner will be at best entitled to cross examine only the respondent/ applicant and no one else. This arrangement is without prejudice to rights and contentions of the respondent/applicant. 4. In view of this arrangement, it is not necessary to consider the apprehension of the respondent/applicant that the other witnesses will not be available for cross examination in future in view of the changed circumstances. It is once again placed on record that the above arrangement is accepted by both the parties as stated across the bar through their respective counsel. Parties are personally present in the court who have instructed their advocates to make the above statement. 5. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the authority has already granted liberty to the petitioner to lead his own evidence. In the circumstances, no further direction is required. 6. It is also agreed between the parties that 4 they will appear before the authority on 8th September at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the appropriate authority on which date the authority may proceed with the hearing of the case in accordance with law keeping in mind the above agreed arrangement. The respondent applicant assures to make himself available for cross examination on that date itself. If the petitioner so desires may avail of that opportunity failing which the authority may proceed with the hearing of the case in accordance with law. 7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J)