1 (CAW 860 OF 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 327 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5026 OF 1997 Mahangu Algu Yadav ...Applicant Vs. Ramdhan Ganeshram Chauhan (since deceased through LRs) Shankar ramdhal Chauhan and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.K.Y. Mandlia for Applicant Mr.D.S. Joshi for Respondent No.1A ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 2ND MAY , 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application filed by the Applicant for permitting him to replace the leaking cement sheet roofs and carry out plaster work and replace the old rolling shutters at his own cost. It is submitted that these are tenable repairs, therefore, the landlord should not have any objection if these repairs are carried out by the tenant. 2. The Respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is pointed out that these premises are not any use and in support, the photographs have been shown by the learned counsel for the Respondents. It is submitted that the electricity 2 (CAW 860 OF 2011) connection has been disconnected in the year 2005 and there is an outstanding bill of more than Rs.3 lacs, which is not paid by the tenant. It is submitted that under the guise of carrying out of repairs, the Applicant is trying to establish that he was using the premises. 3. In my view, there is a sum substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. The photographs which are shown, prima facie, show that the premises apparently not in use. The writ petition is of the year 1994 and till today the Respondent No.3 is not served. In view of the affidavit in reply, it will not be possible to permit the Applicant to carry out the repairs at this stage. It would be appropriate if the writ petition itself is kept for final disposal. Rule and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted by this Court on the petition on 12th September, 1994. It is stated in the order that the learned counsel for the Respondents waives services of rule for the Respondents. At that time, however, Mr. Abhay Oka was appearing as the advocate for the Respondents. He is now elevated as the Judge of this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been trying to serve the Respondent No.3 and bhatta was paid from 3 (CAW 860 OF 2011) time to time. It is submitted that an application was filed for serving the Respondent No.3 again and an application for amendment was made to incorporate the fresh address of the Respondent no.3 and the said application was allowed on 20th April, 2011. It is apparent that though the petition was admitted in 1994 after a period of 16 ½ years, the Respondent No.3 is not yet served. It is obvious that after obtaining interim orders, the Applicant has not taken appropriate steps to promptly serve the Respondent No.3. 5. As a last chance, time is given to the Applicant to serve the Respondent No.3 on the fresh address. Fresh address to be supplied to the office on or before 6th May, 2011. If the fresh address is not given as directed, the petition shall stand dismissed as against the Respondent No.3 for want of prosecution. If the address is given as directed, the returnable date may be extended by the office and notice be issued on the Respondent no.3 on the new address and it is made returnable on 13th June,2011. The Applicant is also permitted to serve the Respondent No.3 by private service through recognized courier, RPAD, Under Certificate of Posting. The Applicant to file affidavit of service before the next date. If the Respondent No.3 is not served before the returnable date, the petition shall stand dismissed as 4 (CAW 860 OF 2011) against the Respondent No.3 with further reference to this Court. 6. Place the writ petition on the final hearing board on 15th June, 2011. Civil Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)