1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2995 OF 2009 Mrs. Pravina Shailesh Panchal & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. Shri Navin Chandra Ramniklal Shah. ..Respondent. Mr.R.D.Mishra for petitioners. Mr.J.A.Udaipuri i/b. M/s. Udaipuri & Co. for Respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 23, 2009. DATE : MARCH 23, 2009. DATE : MARCH 23, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Courts below that two proceedings are different and independent. Insofar as proceedings under section 24, the question would be whether the relationship of the parties was that of licensor and licensee and whether it is a subsisting licence. Dependent on that finding the lower Court would pass an appropriate order. The fact that the Petitioner has filed substantive suit for declaration that he is tenant, in my opinion, does not preclude the competent authority to enquire into the proceedings 2 under section 24 of the Act, if it were to find on the basis of evidence on record that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee. Suffice it to observe that the two proceedings being separate the question of staying the one till the other is decided does not arise. Indeed, if the Petitioner was to eventually succeed in getting declaration in the suit filed by him, appropriate relief will have to be claimed by the Petitioner in the said proceedings, as may be advised. All questions in that behalf are left open. 3. Petition disposed of accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)