1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1574 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1076 of 2000 Padmanabha R. Acharya .. Applicant versus Umakant G. Nakhawa & Ors .. Respondents ... Ms.Gauri Godse for the applicant. Mr.M.V. Limaye i/b D.V. Pawar for the respondents. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 14th July 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, respondent in Writ Petition. At the outset, Mr. Limaye made a request on behalf of Mr.D.V. pawar, Advocate for the opposite party - original petitioner for adjournment on the ground that Mr.Pawar has not returned from Nagpur where he had gone to attend some seminar. 2 2. It is not in dispute that leave note has not been filed by the concerned advocate. As per the Appellate Side Rules, if the advocate intends to take leave of the court from appearance on a given date is required to submit leave note. Such request is normally granted subject to parameters in the Appellate Side rules. That has not been done in this case. In absence of leave note therefore, the matter has to proceed. Request for adjournment made on behalf of opposite party - original writ petitioner is therefore rejected. 3. The relief claimed in this application is for a direction against the opposite party - writ petitioner to comply with the show cause notice issued by the corporation dated 13th June 2008. That notice however, has been issued in the name of the landlord. The grievance of the applicant landlord is that in view of the interim relief granted by this court at the instance of the tenant, the landlord will not be in a position to comply with the show cause notice issued by the corporation. That grievance will have to be accepted. The only course in such a situation is to observe that the landlord shall not be liable for the non compliance of show cause notice issued by the corporation. The 3 corporation, instead, may proceed against the tenant who is in possession of the suit premises. As and when copy of this order is produced before the authorised officer of the corporation, the said officer will be free to proceed against the tenant in occupation in accordance with law. Those proceedings will have to proceed on its own merits uninfluenced by the pendency of writ petition in this court between the landlord and tenant. 4. Application disposed of. Ordered acordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)