1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 192/2011 (Indian Coffee House Workers Cooperative Soc. VERSUS Life Insurance Corporation of India & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.R. Pillai, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no.2-authority rejecting an application filed by the petitioner seeking better particulars. The respondent no.1 had preferred an application for eviction and recovery of damages against the petitioner under Section 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was paying less rent. The petitioner received the notice in the said proceedings and filed an application for better particulars. The same was opposed by the respondent no.1 on the ground that the said particulars were not relevant for the purpose of filing the written statement. The respondent no.1 stated in the reply that the application for better particulars was filed only with a view to protract the proceedings. The respondent no.1 sought for the dismissal of the application as according to the respondent no.1, it was 2 not obligatory on the part of the respondent no.1 to disclose the information sought by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the application and the reply filed thereto, the respondent no.2 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 rightly held that the particulars sought by the petitioner pertained to the matter of evidence and the respondent no.1 could not have been forced to produce the evidence by way of pleadings before the petitioner files the written statement. On a perusal of the application for filing the better particulars and the application filed by the respondent no.1 for eviction under the provisions of the Act of 1971, it appears that the better particular were not necessary for filing the written statement by the petitioner. In case, the respondent no.1 fail to tender evidence on those aspects on which the particulars were sought by the respondent no.1 and in case those aspects are relevant for deciding the application for eviction, the respondent no.1 would fail in case it fails to substantiate its pleadings or tender evidence on the said aspects. Since the particulars sought were not necessary for raising the defence in the written statement, the respondent no.2 rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the respondent no.2 is just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, states that the matter is fixed before the respondent no.2 on 22.01.2011 and since this writ petition was filed, the 3 written statement was not prepared by the petitioner and in such circumstances, a week’s time may be granted for filing of the written statement. In the circumstances mentioned above, the request made on behalf of the petitioner is just and reasonable. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to file the written statement till the 28th of January, 2011. Order accordingly. JUDGE APTE