1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4733/2010 Girdharilal Sawatram Agrawal Vs. Shambhau Ramcharan Sharma. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. Shukla, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. V. V. Bhangde, Adv. for respondent/Caveator. CORAM ; B. P. DHARMADHIKRI, J. DATED : 21st October, 2010. Advocate Shukla for the petitioner-tenant and Advocate V. V. Bhangde for respondent-caveator. This is the third round of matter before this court. Contention now of Advocate Shukla is the Appellate Court has not framed point about disputed relationship of landlord and tenant and thereby has failed to exercise jurisdiction available to it in accordance with law. He has invited attention to the necessary pleadings which give rise to said dispute. Advocate Bhangde for respondent has pointed that in the light of earlier order of this Court dated 3/4/2010 in Writ Petition No.894/2009 the said issue has been concluded 2 insofar as Appellate Court is concerned. He has also relied upon the order dated 22nd October 2008 in Writ Petition No. 3467/2008 to substantiate his contention. He relies on pleadings to urge that dispute was attempted to be created later on Learned counsel has further stated that after remand when the Appellate Court again heard the matter. No arguments about disputed relationship on the basis of available material on record were raised and the point was given up. Advocate Shukla has reiterated this contention that Appellate Court did not frame that point for determination. It is admitted position before the Court that points for determination are framed by the Appellate Court while delivering judgment. Thus, points are not available for perusal before hand. Perusal of earlier judgment delivered by the Appellate Court in this very appeal prior to amendment on 23.1.2009 particularly paragraph 13 reveals that arguments on the point of disputed relationship were raised and hence while appreciating that argument point no.1 about the proof of title of landlord to permit was framed. Perusal of 3 impugned judgment dated 29/4/2010 however reveals that no such arguments were advanced before the Appellate Court. It is not the case of present petitioner that such arguments were advanced and Appellate Court has either ignored the same or omitted to consider the same. Order dated 16.7.2007 passed by Appellate Court refusing amendment is not filed with this petition and has not been challenged. In view of this position, it is apparent that contention about identity of tenanted premises or then title of respondent-plaintiff to it is not open and cannot be gone into in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner-tenant has contended that need given by respondent is of having separate dairy business and respondent is already having dairy business in adjoining premises. The licnece of said premises is in the name of respondent but his brother is managing the said business. The Courts have concurrently considered the evidence adduced by the parties and finding of fact has been recorded in this respect. The same has not been demonstrated to be erroneous or perverse. 4 I am, therefore, inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE ambulkar