1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.3562/2008 Smt. Kureshabi A. Noor and ors...vs..Mohd.Ibrahim H.Mohd Ismail ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Advocate Kshirsagar for the petitioner. The contention is that as the partnership deed is not registered, the suit filed by respondent is not maintainable in view of bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The second contention is that the respondent has pleaded that he was paying rent of Rs.5,000/- per month to the present petitioners and in token thereof he was to continue to use the suit property. According to Kshirsagar, the respondent is, therefore, accepted to be sub-tenant and hence, the suit ought to have been filed before the Small Cause Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(2)Mh L J 369 Jogani & Sachdev Developments ..vs.. Lawrence D'Souza and others. I have perused the reported judgment. The words “in relation to recovery of possession” in Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are construed in that 2 judgment to find out whether the suit instituted was of such a nature or not, in paragraph 7, the earlier reported judgments on the issue have been looked into. In the present matter, the respondent has pointed out in plaint the arrangement made by parties. Those arrangements could not be implemented. He has stated that he is continuing in possession of the suit property and therefore, the prayer was not to disturb his lawful possession without following due procedure of law. Both the Courts have prima facie found that the respondent is in possession and thereafter protected the same by passing interim order. The petitioner could not demonstrate their joint possession or exclusive possession of the suit premises. The facts narrated in the plaint pertain to controversies arising between the parties. The plaint does not in any way show any application of Section 69 of the Partnership Act. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. However, the proceedings in C. S. No. 433/08 are expedited and the Court below is directed to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31st December, 2009. JUDGE Andurkar.