1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2158/2011[JAMSHID KHAN ..VS.. DARAMVEER CHHABADA AND ANOR] WRIT PETITION NO.2159/2011[HAMIDKHAN MAJIDKHAN ..VS.. DHARMAVEER CHHABADA ANOR] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R.M.Pande, advocate for petitioner Shri CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 2/5/2011. Heard Shri Pande, for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the executing court on 29.4.2011 issuing a warrant of possession in favour of the respondent. The petitioner was the original non applicant in the proceedings filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller under clause 13(3)(i) (ii)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller granted permission to the respondent to issue quit notice to the petitioner under clause 13(3)(i)(ii)and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. However, this court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner held that the respondent was entitled to grant permission to issue quit notice under clause 13(1) of the Order only. The judgment passed by this court in Writ petition was confirmed by this court in a letters patent appeal as the letters patent appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed. The petitioner approached the Hon. Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed. After the special leave petition was dismissed, the petitioner on the basis of a reference made in some other writ petition in regard to the point involved in the letters patent appeal in this case filed a review 2 application before this court in letters patent appeal. It is submitted that the review application is still pending in this court. On the basis of the pendency of the review application, the petitioner sought stay to the executing proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. The executing court however, issued the warrant of possession. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with the impugned order dated 29.4.2011. The petitioner cannot seek stay to the execution proceeding only in view of the pendency of an issue which is referred to the Larger Bench and which is allegedly involved in the letters patent appeal filed by the petitioner, specially when the reference is not yet answered by the Larger Bench and the reference is made after the letters patent appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the executing court was justified in issuing the warrant of possession in favour of the respondent. Hence, in the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a stay of this order, as also the order passed by the executing court till 5.5.2011. Prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is reasonable and hence granted. The possession of the petitioner is protected only till 5.5.2011. JUDGE SMP