1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1191/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3782 / 2010(d) ( Dindayal Laxmansingh Chavan vs. Smt.Kaushalyabai Mahakalkar ) 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 : 15 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. In Writ Petition before this Court the order passed by the Appellate Court in review was questioned. In the light of arguments advanced, this Court has considered the controversy. Now the contention is provisions of Section 58 (1)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are not relevant and the provisions of Section 58(2) are only relevant and, therefore, the review. is good. Learned counsel also stated that suit premises falls within the slum area, however, accepted that that issue was not argued in the Writ Petition. It is apparent that Section 58(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 continues proceedings pending on the day of coming into force of that Act before the Rent Controller and for that purpose the provisions of C P & Berar Premises Rent Control Act, 1949. Here, there was no earlier adjudication by Rent Controller and the proceedings were filed before the Small Cause Court and challenge was to those 2 proceedings. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the review application, as filed. Application is therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE sahare.