1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8519 OF 2009 Anilkumar Gulabchand Jain. .. Petitioner Vs Miss Saroj Maruti Gaikwad & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R. M. Haridas for the Petitioner. Shri Rajendra Parkar for the Respondent No.1. Shri G.S. Godbole i/by Shri Sanjay Singh for Respondent No.10. -- WRIT PETITION NO. 8528 OF 2009 Anilkumar Gulabchand Jain. .. Petitioner Vs Poonamchand Babulal Jain & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.M. Haridas for the Petitioner. -- WRIT PETITION NO. 8584 OF 2009 Anilkumar Gulabchand Jain. .. Petitioner Vs Rajaram Krishna Sawant & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.M. Haridas for the Petitioner. -- WRIT PETITION NO. 8588 OF 2009 Anilkumar Gulabchand Jain. .. Petitioner 2 Vs Arvind Ganpat Aarte & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.M. Haridas for the Petitioner. Ms Yogini Choudhari for Respondent No.1. Shri G.S. Godbole with Shri Sanjay Singh for the Respondent No.10. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. As the facts of these Petitions are more or less identical, a reference is made to the facts of the case in the Writ Petition No.8519 of 2009. The Petitioner is the 9th Defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the 1st Respondent herein. The 2nd to 9th Respondents are the 2nd to 8th Defendants and the 10th Respondent is the 10th Defendant. According to the case of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, she is the tenant of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 in respect of a shop more particularly described in the Plaint. On the interim notice taken out by the 1st Respondent, the Defendants have been restrained by an order of temporary injunction from dispossessing the 1st Respondent. By the said order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the 1st Respondent has been directed to deposit the arrears of rent and has been directed to go on depositing the rent. By the said order, the 10th Respondent (10th Defendant) has been permitted to withdraw the rent. An appeal was preferred by the Petitioner for challenging the said order to the extent to which the 10th Respondent (10th 3 Defendant) was permitted to withdraw the rent. The appeal has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that there is a serious dispute as regards the status of the 1st Respondent- Plaintiff as a tenant and the status of the 10th Respondent as the landlord. He submitted that even the Petitioner has filed a suit against the 1st Respondent which is pending. He submitted that the entitlement of the 10th Defendant-10th Respondent to withdraw the amount has not been proved and, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error by permitting the 10th Respondent to withdraw the amount. 3. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, as of today, the Petitioner has not accepted that the 1st Respondent-Plaintiff as his tenant in respect of the suit premises. Therefore, as of today, the Petitioner cannot claim any right, title or interest in the rent amount. Unless the Petitioner claims that he is the landlord and the 1st Respondent is a tenant, the Petitioner cannot have any claim to the rent payable in respect of the suit premises. The Courts below have permitted the 10th Respondent to withdraw the rent. The order of the Trial Court makes it very clear that the amount of rent shall be deposited by the Plaintiff - 1st Respondent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. It is, therefore, obvious that even the withdrawal of the amount by the 10th Respondent (10th Defendant) is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 4 parties and subject to final result of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the challenge to the direction of permitting the withdrawal of the rent by the 10th Respondent cannot be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction inasmuch as the rights of the parties have not been decided by the impugned orders. All contentions of the parties regarding respective rights claimed by them always remain open as the impugned orders are purely an interim orders. 4. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petitions are rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 18th January, 2010. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)