pvr １ wpl2167-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(Lodg) NO.2167 OF 2011 Smt.Kumudbala Rameshchandra Shrivastava ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and another. ...Respondents --- Mr.Sokhpreetsingh Kohli i/b. Mr.A.K.Saxena, for Petitioner. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, AGA for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 29th November,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard. The appellate authority has given elaborate reasons as to why the premises are to be de-requisitioned. The original authority and the appellate authority have considered the pvr ２ wpl2167-11 question whether the requisition is to be continued? . The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the predecessor-in- title of the petitioner has become direct tenant of the landlord. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded. Perusal of the provisions of Section 15B of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act shows that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner cannot be said to be a deemed tenant of the premises. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner got possession of the premises as a Government employee. He retired in the year 1984, thus lost his entitlement to continue in possession of the said premises. The learned AGP appearing for Respondents, after taking instructions from the Controller of Accommodation Mr.R.N.Pande, stated that after taking possession of the premises from the petitioner, the possession will be restored to the landlord. In our opinion, continuing the premises under requisition for a long time is pvr ３ wpl2167-11 unjust. When the premises were requisitioned for accommodating the Government employees, continuation of legal representative of the Government employee even after his retirement, in our opinion, is unfair. The petition, therefore, cannot be entertained. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he has filed civil suit in the Small Causes Court for decree of declaration that he is a deemed tenant of the premises. In our opinion, the petitioner can continue that suit as even according to him, he is a tenant and therefore, is entitled to possession, and he can also apply for decree of possession in the Small Causes Court and that would be independent of requisition and that the landlord has agreed tenancy of the premises in his favour. In our opinion, however, because the civil suit is pending, the premises cannot be continued under requisition. The petition is, therefore, rejected. However, at the request of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, it pvr ４ wpl2167-11 is directed that despite disposal of the petition, interim order which is presently operating shall continue to operate for a period of Eight weeks from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)