IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2009 Pandurang Sakharam Shete ... Petitioner Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. ... Respondents Mr. A.S. Karwande for the petitioner. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2009 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Challenge to the present writ petition is to the order dated 1st December, 2008 passed by the Estate Officer. In the order impugned in the present writ petition, application with two prayers was made before the Estate Officer; one for deposit of rent and other for production and inspection of documents. The Estate Officer has passed the following order: “Today two applications of Op 2 are dismissed. 1. One application of Op2 to allow to deposit the rent is rejected on the grounds that the said matter does not come under the purview of proceedings before E.O. 2. The inspection of documents was offered by the applicants but the same is refused by the advocate of Op2 on the grounds that the documents they stated in their application are not available. The advocate of applicant says that whatever documents are relied upon are produced in the proceedings and are available for inspection. The inspection of documents is refused by the Op2. The application of Op2 is disposed off. The advocate of Op2 is directed to file affidavit of their witness if any on the next date. The case is adjourned to 17.12.2008 at 11.30 a.m.” 2. It is not necessary for us to examine the various contentions raised with regard to jurisdiction, competency and legality of the impugned order. Suffice it to note that learned counsel appearing for the respondents has clearly stated that they would provide inspection of all the documents which they are relying upon and they would even provide inspection of the documents which the petitioner want, provided the petitioner gives a notice within one week from today and if those documents are available with the respondents. 3. He further states that the respondents support the order of refusal of permission to deposit of rent by the Estate Officer not merely on the question of jurisdiction but primarily for the reason that they do not wish to accept the petitioner as tenant and, therefore, have opposed the request of depositing of rent and would not take any advantage of non-deposit of rent as the petitioner has made a clear request for deposit of rent. 4. In view of this, we see no reason to interfere in the order. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. Respondents will abide by the statement. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.