ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.9605 OF 2003 PETITION NO.9605 OF 2003 PETITION NO.9605 OF 2003 Dattu Kachru Patil ...Petitioner Vs. Smt.Vimal Omprakash Dham & Ors. ...Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Mr.Sagar Joshi i/by Mr.S.M.Oak for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The challenge is made to the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2003 passed in Civil Revision Application No.6 of 1999 by the Additional District Judge, Kalyan whereby after considering the material available on record pursuance to the provisions of Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act,1947 determined and granted the standard rent, as per schedule at para-13 of the application as rent initially agreed between the parties thereby set aside the order passed by the Trial Court fixing the standard Rent of the premises as per extract of assessment Exhibit 63. The application for fixing the standard rent has been considered based upon the agreed rent, which in these ( 2 ) facts and circumstances of the case, a judgment of the Apex Court in Prithviraj Sablok Vs.S.Y.Shinde, AIR Prithviraj Sablok Vs.S.Y.Shinde, AIR Prithviraj Sablok Vs.S.Y.Shinde, AIR 1993 1993 1993 Supreme Court, 1929 Supreme Court, 1929 Supreme Court, 1929. Therefore, considering the averments made and material available on record, the fixing of the standard rent as shown in para 13 of the Petition as initially rent agreed between the parties at the stage needs no interference. 2. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)