1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8391 OF 2009 Master Harshvardhan Rajesh Murarka minor through his father and natural guardian Mr.Rajesh Omprakash Murarka & Ors ...Petitioners vs. M/s.Bappanand Narasimhan & Others ...Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8392 OF 2009 Rajesh Omprakash Murarka & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. M/s.Bappanand Narasimhan & Others ...Respondents Mr.G.S.Bhat for the petitioners in both the petitions Ms Mukta Gobse for the respondent nos.2 and 3 in both the petitions CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioners have filed an application under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 before the Competent Authority. An application was made by the petitioners for recasting the issues. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 The order is purely interlocutory in nature. If the contention of the petitioners is that the Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to decide any of the issues earlier framed by the learned Competent Authority, that objection will always remain open notwithstanding the 2 impugned order. The petitioners can always agitate the said contention at the time of final hearing of the application for eviction. The contention that the Competent Authority while deciding an application for eviction under section 24 of the said Act of 1999 has only a limited jurisdiction can be always urged at the time of final hearing of the said application. The order framing a particular issue cannot be considered as an order conferring the jurisdiction on the Competent Authority to decide that particular issue. Only on the ground that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature, the Petitions are not entertained. 3 Subject to what is observed above, the Petitions are disposed of by keeping all contentions of the petitioners open. JUDGE