1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.409 of 2010 Babu @ Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty & Anr ... Petitioners versus Pratap Keshavji Thakkar & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the petitioners Ms.Leena Patil for respondent no.1. Mr.A.A.Garge for respondent nos.2 to 5. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 11th June 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Ms.Patil waives service for respondent no.1. Mr.Garge waives service for respondent nos.2 to 5. 2. By this petition, petitioners (original defendant nos.5 and 6) challenge the order dated 5th November 2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kalyan u/s.28 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( for short “Rent Act”) directing the original defendant nos.1 to 5 to restore the essential services of latrine which is alleged to be demolished by the petitioners. 2 3. Respondent no.1 who claims to be a tenant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit in the Civil Court alleging that respondent nos. 2 to 4 (original defendants 1 to 4). He further alleged that petitioners, acting as an agent of the landlords-respondent nos.2 to 5, had demolished the latrine which was used as a facility for the rented premises. The petitioners denied that they were the agents of respondent nos.2 to 4. They contended that they were the owners of the neighboring property and had nothing to do with the suit premises. 4. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners were the agents of respondent nos.2 to 4, the landlords. It is the petitioners’ case that they are the owners of the neighboring property and have nothing to do with the rented premises. In the circumstances, the trial court acting as a rent court, clearly erred in granting direction to the petitioner no.1 to restore the facility. 5. So far as the respondent nos.2 to 5 – the owners of the premises are concerned, counsel submits that they have filed a revision in the District Court challenging the order. He submits that the first respondent is not their tenant at all. Since the matter is pending before the District Court, I refrain from making any observations regarding the liability of the respondent nos.2 to 5 to restore the facility of latrine. Suffice it to say that the impugned order cannot stand qua the present petitioners. In the circumstances, the impugned order, in so far as it relates to the petitioners is quashed. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)