710lpa203.08.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.203 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.2442 of 2007 (S. V. Kedari and Co. and Ors. vs. M/s. Ibrahim Brothers and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: J. P.DEVADHAR AND A. B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. Date : 07/10/2010. Civil Application No. 674 of 2010 Heard Mr. B.B.Mehadia, Adv. for the appellants and Mr.A.M.Gordey, Adv. with Mr.N.H.Shams, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7. Civil Application No. 674 of 2010 is moved by the respondents for withdrawal of amount deposited by the appellants in the Court. By consent, the Civil Application is allowed. L.P.A. NO. 203 OF 2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 710lpa203.08.odt 2 . In a dispute between the landlords and the tenants covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge the decision of the Courts below and if not, whether a Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable against the decision of the learned Single Judge is the preliminary objection raised in this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, in the present case, the main dispute is whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the requirements of sons of the partners can be said to be the bona fide requirements of the partnership firm and therefore, Writ Petition under Article 226 would be maintainable to challenge such decision of the Courts below. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that the Trial Court has given a categorical finding that the premises are bona fide required by the firm. In our opinion, the above controversy relates to the merits of the case which can be considered only if the Letters 710lpa203.08.odt 3 . Patent Appeal is maintainable. The threshold question is whether the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the orders passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In Letters Patent Appeal No.150 of 2010, Kalpesh Hemantbhai Shah .vs. Manhar Auto Sotres, through its Partners (decided on 1.10.2010), based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Syam Shetty and anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010(7) SCALE 428, this Court has held that, in a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. In the circumstances, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the appellants seeks continuation of stay for a period of ten weeks. In the interest of justice, the stay order is continued for a further period of ten weeks. JUDGE JUDGE jais 710lpa203.08.odt 4 .