1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3938 OF 2010 Nathmal Shaligram Malani -: VERSUS :- Shriram Shaligram Malviya 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 : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri S.V. Purohit, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for respondent. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel at the outset points out that the permission granted under Clause 13[3][ii] of the C.P. and Berar Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 is being reconsidered as petitioners have sought review before the Division Bench of this Court and that review is now fixed in 3rd weeks of October, 2010. He points out that the rent control proceedings were filed by one Shriram Shaligram Malviya. He expired 2 leaving behind one son and two daughters. Only son was brought on record alleging that Shaligram had bequeathed the suit property to him by a Will. Learned Counsel contends that all the legal heirs needed to be brought on record or then some material authorizing the son to prosecute the proceedings for and on behalf of all legal heirs ought to have been tendered. The contention is, in absence of such material, the proceedings continued further by son alone, are not tenable. The objection has not been correctly evaluated either by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati and thereafter by the Court of District Judge-3, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal. Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel contends that even one of the co-owner is entitled to prosecute the matter. Hence the view as reached concurrently does not call for any interference. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that one of the legal heirs is legally entitled to institute and maintain or prosecute the proceedings against the tenant. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the concurrent findings reached by the Court of Junior Division or then by the Appellate Court. Present petition is therefore, misconceived. 3 The proceedings for permission are alleged to be still pending because of review filed by the petitioner. It is apparent that if the petitioner is entitled to any interim protection, he has to seek appropriate orders in those proceedings. Petitioner is therefore given time till 29.10.2010 to obtain appropriate orders from the Division Bench of this Court in the matter. Till then the respondent shall not execute the impugned judgment and decree. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.