1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1721 OF 2010 M/s. Maniklal & Co. -: versus :- Subhash K. Jaiswal and others 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 : APRIL 13, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.N. Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri C.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents/caveators. Shri Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner / tenant points out that permission granted by the Rent Controller to respondents / landlord is still not final and challenge is pending in appeal under Clause 21 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. In view of the pending challenge he states that the subsequent events pointed out to the Lower Appellate Court in present matter are not relevant at this stage, because necessary finding in that respect is required to be recorded by the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Order. He points out that the Appellate Court however, has given only three months time to vacate and the said permission and grant of time is contrary to law. 2 Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents/ landlord states that the landlord is fighting for possession since 1991092 and suit is already decreed. Appeal is also dismissed and hence, if this Court is inclined to interfere in the matter, petitioner – tenant should be put to appropriate condition. The anxiety of Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel can be understood, but at present thee is no legal sanction behind it. The permission given to respondents to terminate the tenancy of petitioner has yet not attained finality as appeal against it under clause 21 is pending. If appeal is allowed by the Appellate Court, it is apparent that the decree of eviction granted by the trial court will automatically fall to ground. In this situation, it is also clear that the relevance of the alleged events stated to be subsequent events and their impact has to be considered by the Appellate Court in clause 21 of the Order. The said events its relevance and impact is therefore left open for consideration by that Authority. Parties are free to raise their rival contentions before the said Authority in accordance with law. For said purpose the directions to hand over possession to respondents / landlord within three months given by the District Judge-10 in the impugned judgment, however, cannot be sustained and said direction is therefore replaced by directing the petitioner/defendant to hand over possession to respondents / plaintiff within a period of one month after the adjudication of the appeal by the Appellate Court in appeal under Clause 21 of the 1949 Order and in accordance with that decision. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree delivered by the District Judge-10, Nagpur on 24.02.2010 in 3 Regular Civil Appeal No. 495/2009 is modified only to this extent. Petitioner to join Additional Collector, Nagpur as party respondent in present matter. Learned A.G.P. present in the court waives service for added respondent. The said added respondent – Additional Collector is directed to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.