1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4611 OF 2009 Subhash Shamrao Mojar .. Petitioner versus M/s.Inderlok Hotels Pvt Ltd. .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO.4613 OF 2009 Sangita C. Mojar .. Petitioner versus M/s.Inderlok Hotels Pvt Ltd. .. Respondent Ms.V.R.Kalekar for the petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.Deepak Chitnis i/by M/s.Deepak Chitnis Chiparikar & Co for the respondent in both the petitions. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners in these petitions are defendants/tenants in suits filed by the respondent. The suits are filed for eviction under section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. By these writ petitions under Article 227 of 2 the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging interim orders passed during the pendency of the said suits by which the petitioners/defendants have been restrained from carrying out any construction/addition and alterations to the suit premises. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not carried out any permanent construction as alleged by the respondent and as the respondent has not carried out tenentable repairs, the petitioners are entitled to do so in view of section 14 of the said Act of 1999. 2. I have considered the submissions. The impugned orders are interim orders which restrain the petitioners/tenants from carrying out construction/addition and alterations to the suit premises. If the petitioners desire to carry out tenentable repairs to the suit premises, notwithstanding the impugned orders, they can always apply to the trial Court seeking permission to carry out the repairs. If such application is made, the trial Court is bound to decide the same in accordance with law. Moreover, findings recorded in the impugned order are tentative findings only for the purposes of considering the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The pending suits will be decided without being influenced by the said tentative findings. 3. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Petitions are rejected. In view of the rejection of the 3 petitions, Civil Application No.1189 of 2009 and 1190 of 2009 do not survive in as much as it will be open for the petitioners to apply before the trial Court for grant of permission to carry out tenentable repairs. All contentions of the parties in that behalf are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)