Lpast.17515.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.251/2011 IN L.P.A.ST.NO.17515/2011 Manoramabai w/o Vishwanath Limaye,deceased through L.Rs. Appellants/ Vs. Applicants Pramila Vijay Phansalkar Respondent Mr.S.S.Shah i/b Thodur Law Associates for appellant Mr.V.S.Gokhale for respondent Coram-P.B.Majmudar, And Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date- 5th August,2011. P.C. . Considering the grounds mentioned in the application, delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. Registry to give number to the Appeal in due course. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. 2 With the consent of both the sides the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3 This appeal is directed against the judgment and Lpast.17515.11 2 order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution confirming the decree for eviction passed by the Small Causes Court which is confirmed in the Appellate Court under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. 4 The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises. The respondent-landlord filed suit for eviction on the ground of nuisance and permanent construction of a commode in the rented premises. It is the case of the landlady that there is dripping of water from the commode and that water is accumulating in the kitchen portion of the landlady. The suit was opposed by the appellant on the ground that looking to her old age and since her leg was fractured in a motor accident it was necessary for her to use the commode and, therefore, the commode was constructed in the rented premises. The suit was filed in the year 1985. The Rent Court passed decree on the ground of nuisance. The said decree was confirmed by the appellate Court against which the petition under article Lpast.17515.11 3 227 of the Constitution was filed. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the orders passed by the courts below are not required to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition was accordingly dismissed against which this appeal is filed. 5 The original tenant died during the pendency of the appeal before the District Court and her heirs were brought on record.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the courts below committed an error in passing the decree on the ground of nuisance. Mr.Gokhale, however, submits that this appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.In our view this appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has clearly exercised his power under Article 227 of the Constitution by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. Considering the nature of the dispute before the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has exercised powers under Article 227 of the constitution against the Lpast.17515.11 4 subordinate Court’s order and the learned Single Judge did not exercise original jurisdiction while deciding the petition. The proceeding arises out of the civil suit under the Rent Act and against the decree of the appellate court. The District Court also decided the appeal and dismissed the same. Considering this in our view the learned Single Judge has exercised his supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution and hence this L.P.A. is not maintainable. 6 The learned Single Judge has clearly observed in paragraph 9 of the judgment that the decisions of the Courts below did not require any interference in exercise of an extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 In view of the same this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant requested that the appellant would like to take further recourse by Lpast.17515.11 5 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge by way of filing SLP in the Supreme Court. Mr.Gokhale states that his client will not take any steps for four weeks in order to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)