1 (WP2397/11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2397 OF 2011 Chidambaran Subramanian @ Kannan and others .... Petitioners. v/s Raman Subramanian and others .... Respondents. Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioners. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 25th April, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Petitioners are original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 is Petitioner No.1’s elder brother. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration that he is a tenant and that the rent receipt may be transferred in his name after demise of their father. During pendency of this suit, he filed an application that he may be permitted to deposit the rent. This was objected to by the Petitioners and by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that the Petitioners herein were depositing the rent regularly. The Trial Court dismissed that application. Against the said order of dismissal, revision application was filed by Respondent No.1, which application was allowed and he was permitted to 2 (WP2397/11) deposit the rent. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition. 2. It is submitted that the Petitioners were paying the rent regularly and this fact was accepted by the landlords. That being the position, revisional court ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. There is some substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. The revisional court, prima facie, in my view, ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court since it was a procedural order. However, since the revisional court has clarified in the impugned order that the said order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, in my view, no prejudice is caused to the Petitioners. However, in order to further ensure that the said order is not misconstrued by the Trial Court in any manner, it is further clarified that the contention of the Petitioners which was accepted by the landlords i.e. Respondent No.2 and 3 shall be taken into consideration by the Trial Court at the time of deciding the suit and merely because the Respondent No.1 is permitted to pay the rent, it would not create any right whatsoever in his favour and he will have to separately establish that after demise of the father, he has become tenant within the meaning of provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 3 (WP2397/11) 4. In these circumstances, I do not propose to interfere with the impugned order passed by the revisional court. It is further clarified that in the event Respondent No.1 commits any default in depositing the rent in court, the landlords shall immediately inform this to the Petitioners who then will be permitted to deposit the said amount so that no prejudice is caused to both the parties. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)