1 wp4800.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4800 OF 2011 Sunil Shantilal Shah. ....Petitioner. Vs. Cittaranjan B. Jatakia & ors. ....Respondents. Mr. A.J. Dholakia, with Rekha Shukla, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Shreepad Murthy, Counsel i/b. Ms. Pinky Bhansali, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- AUGUST 16, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Dholakia, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Murthy, Sr. Counsel for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and Petition taken up for hearing. Mr. Murthy waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondents. 3. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the Judgment and Order dated 11/4/2011 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bandra, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 199 of 2010, thereby 2 wp4800.11 allowing the said Revision Application and while setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 28/10/2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, presiding in C.R. No. 36 below Exh. 52 in R.A.E. Suit No. 168 of 2004, allowing the said Application Exh. 52. 4. By the said Application Exh. 52, the Respondent Landlord prayed for the following relief : “a) This Hon’ble Court by an Order and Direction permit the Plaintiffs and their engineers and workmen to enter the suit premises No. 4, 1st floor, Madhav Niwas, 18 Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400 056 for inspection of the roof and carry out any support and/or repairs for the stability of said roof and any other area of the suit premises if such repairs are required as per the suggestion of the consultants / experts in order to avoid any mishaps.” 5. In this Petition, following order was passed on 4/7/2011 : “1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the lower Appellate Court gives complete authority to the landlord to enter the premises and carry out the repairs; another objection which is raised is that, such an order could not have been passed while exercising powers under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 2. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord that it is duty of the landlord to keep the premises in good condition, and he has every right to enter the premises and take inspection. It appears that there are number of disputes between the landlord and the tenant. Under these circumstances, in my view, it will be appropriate if the Registrar 3 wp4800.11 General appoints an officer of this Court as Court Commissioner who shall visit the suit premises along with the Architect and Engineers of both the parties. The petitioner shall cooperate with this exercise to carry out inspection. 2. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. The Registrar General shall appoint an officer as a Court Commissioner within two days from today, who shall complete the work of inspection, as directed hereinabove within a week thereafter. The costs of the Commissioner is quantified at Rs.2,000/-, which shall be borne by the petitioner herein. S.O. 18th July, 2011. ” 6. Accordingly the Court Commissioner has visited the premises. The Engineers and Workmen of the Respondents have also been allowed to inspect the premises. Inspection Report of the Court Commissioner dated 19th July, 2011 is placed on record and the parties do not dispute that the Engineers and Workmen of the Respondents were allowed to inspect the premises. 7. Mr. Murthy, learned Advocate for the Respondents makes a statement that, for the time being, the Respondents do not want to carry out any repairs in the suit premises, which are situated on first floor of the building. 8. In view of this, it is obvious that at this stage, the Respondents are not pressing second part of the prayer clause (a) in Exh. 52 which reads 4 wp4800.11 thus : “and carry out any support and/or repairs for the stability of said roof and any other area of the suit premises if such repairs are required as per the suggestion of the consultants / experts in order to avoid any mishaps.” 9. In so far as the first part of the prayer in Exh. 52 is concerned, that stands duly satisfied on account of the inspection of the Court Commissioner. 10. In view of this, without going into the question of maintainability of the Revision Application No. 199 of 2010 filed by the Respondents and the question as to whether the Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes was justified in entertaining the Revision or permitting the Respondents/Landlords to carry out such repairs, this Writ Petition is disposed off by clarifying that the Respondents have given up second part of the prayer in Exh. 52 at this stage and the first part of the prayer stands fulfilled. 11. Needless to state that, in case, the Respondents file an application in future for the second part of the prayer, which is given up at this stage, the same will be considered in accordance with law including objection of the 5 wp4800.11 Petitioner that section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not contemplate passing of such an order. 12. Rule made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)