IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.792 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.290 OF 2008 Smt. ASMABI AHMED BABA SHAIKH & ANR. ..APPLICANTS VS. SMT RANI BHAGWAT SINGH THROUGH HER LEAL HEIRS ..RESPONDENTS Ms. Rohini Dandekar i/b Beranwalla & Co. for Decreeholder Smt. Harjeet Kaur Respondent No.3 present in person / Applicants CORAM: DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. An order has been passed against the Respondent by the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on 14th September 2006, by which, a possession warrant was issued for handing over the suit premises, which consist of a living room, kitchen and toilet of flat No.2 (subsequently numbered flat 14) on the third floor of Edge Building, Zohara Aghadi, Yari Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The warrant of possession was challenged in Writ proceedings before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Petition was dismissed summarily by a Learned Single Judge on 30th March 2007. The Learned Single Judge noted that the eviction case was decided and a decree for eviction was passed on 29th July 1992. Though the decree was sought to be executed by the bailiff on 24th November 1995, it could not be executed. The Learned Single Judge observed that, there was no stay on the execution of the decree and consequently, the landlady had moved the Competent Authority for a warrant of possession, which came to be issued. This Court observed that the challenge to the order dated 14th September, 2006 was devoid of merit and that the eviction decree was applicable only to the area covered by the suit premises. 2. An order was passed by the Competent Authority on 10th May 2007, authorizing the Competent Officer to evict the Respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Applicants to the Execution Application, it is common ground, filed an execution application thereafter before this Court for the execution of the Judgment of the Competent Authority, to recover the decreetal claim for the payment of compensation. Subsequently, however, the Execution Application was amended, so as to include a claim for recovery of possession. 3. Section 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter, which the Competent Authority or the State Government or an officer authorized by it is empowered by or under the Act to decide. The Applicants were, therefore, justified in moving the Competent Authority for the issuance of warrant of possession which, as noted above was issued. The order of the Competent Authority was confirmed by this Court on 30th March 2007. Therefore, there was in any event, no warrant in law to move this Court in execution proceedings for the issuance of a fresh warrant of possession. The effect of Section 45 read with Section 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is that the Competent Authority alone has jurisdiction to execute its orders under the Act. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that the Respondent has obstructed the execution of the decree and as a result the Applicants considered it appropriate to move this Court. That can furnish no basis in law to bypass a statutory provision, conferring exclusive jurisdiction. In view of the clear provisions of Section 45 and 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Respondents would have to be relegated to the remedy of executing the order of the Competent Authority, before the Competent Authority. During the course of the hearing of these proceeding, Respondent No.3 who appears in person expressed an apprehension that the safety of the Respondents may be in question and, therefore, the Applicants should be relegated to the remedies, which they have for executing the order of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Competent Authority which has issued the warrant of possession is not powerless, in the event that the execution of the order is obstructed by any party. In the present case, as noted in the order of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, the order of eviction has been passed, as far back as on 29th July 1992, despite which, despite which the order has not been executed. The order has attained finality. The Chamber summons is accordingly made absolute with the direction that the warrant of possession that has been issued by this Court, in the course of the execution application, shall stand recalled, leaving it open to the Applicants to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to execute the order of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)