ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3751 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3751 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3751 OF 2008 Mr.Prakash B.Avatramani ...Petitioner Vs. Mr.M.S.Nair ...Respondent. Ms.Aarti P.Bhide for the Petitioner. Mr.T.J.Poopally for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 17th October, 2008. : 17th October, 2008. : 17th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner, who is the landlord, filed the present Writ Petition against the concurrent findings, whereby both the Courts below, after considering the fact that the Respondent Licensee is in occupation of premises prior to 1st February, 1973 and therefore, as an application for fixing the standard rent, a prayer of preliminary objection of maintainability of the application, was rejected. 2. Taking all this into account, on this undisputed position, unless declared otherwise, prima facie the person who is licensee in occupation of the premises prior to 1st February, 1973 is entitled to have all ( 2 ) protection under the Bombay Rent Act if that is so, such application filed by the licensee who is now need to be treated as deemed tenant moved such application for fixing a standard rent that application cannot be dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of licensor or landlord. 3. On this undisputed position, therefore, I see there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent reasonings given by both the Courts including the order of dismissal of preliminary objection as raised, the Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)