1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2748 OF 2011 (J.K. Education Society and others vs. Rajkumar Sawai Bhawanisingh and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.1. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 20, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 21/3/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur-9 by which the revision application filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. The petition also takes exception to the order dated 19/4/2011 by which the review application filed by the present petitioners came to be rejected. The petitioners are the tenants of the premises in question, in respect of which the 2 respondent no.1 herein has filed proceedings before the competent Authority for eviction of the petitioners on account of the fact that the licence in question has come to an end. In the said proceedings, the respondent no.1 took a stand that the petitioners are in occupation of the premises not in the capacity as licencees, but as lessees. The said proceedings culminated in an order of eviction dated 25/8/2008 being passed against the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before the concerned Court. In the said revision, the petitioners took a stand that the competent Authority did not have jurisdiction qua non-residential premises. By an order passed in the revision application, the matter was remanded back to the competent Authority for a de novo consideration. Against the said order of remand, respondent no.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.1977/2009 wherein the constitutional vires of Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was also questioned. The said writ petition admittedly is as yet pending. In the meantime, the respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil 3 Suit No.97/2009 inter alia seeking eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement, default in payment of rent and nuisance and it was also pleaded that the petitioners would not have any right in view of the fact that the licence came to an end. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application purportedly to be under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure questioning the maintainability of the said suit. The trial Court by order dated 1/1/2011 rejected the said application on the ground that such an application would not be maintainable under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order dated 1/1/2011, the petitioners filed a revision, which was numbered as 11/11 before the District Court, Nagpur. The said revision came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 21/3/2011 inter alia holding that cause of action for the two proceedings was different and eviction of the petitioners sought on the ground mentioned in the suit could not be tried by the Competent Authority under Section 24 of the said Act. The revisional Court also held that 4 alternative plea that was taken in the said suit, was needed to be taken in view of the petitioners' own pleading that the licence had come an end. The revisional Court was of the view that in the teeth of the case of the defendants, the respondent no.1/plaintiff was entitled to take the alternative plea. The revisional Court, therefore, rejected the said revision filed by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application inter alia on the ground that the most material aspect, namely, that in the said suit, the respondent no.1/plaintiff claimed possession on the basis of expiry of licence period, which was also a ground before the competent Authority, was not considered. The said review application came to be rejected by the same Court on the ground on which the revision application came to be dismissed, namely, that the said alternative plea that has been raised by the respondent no.1 is based on the submission of the petitioners herein, i.e. tenants that they are not the licencees, but they are leaseholders. It is well settled that the alternative pleas can be taken, if they are not mutually self destructive. In 5 the context of the cause of action for the said two proceedings, i.e. proceedings before the competent Authority and the Regular Civil Suit No. 97/2009, the trial Court as well as revisional Court were of the view that the suit filed by the respondent no.1 was maintainable notwithstanding the proceedings pending before the Competent Authority. Having considered the reasons mentioned in both the impugned orders, in my view, the same cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj