1 wp4371.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4371 OF 1994 1 Smt.Kusum w/o Lalsingh Rajput 2 Kumar Kuldeep Lalsingh Rajput ...Petitioners vs. 1 Smt.Sushma Sharadrao Shirgopikar 2 Umesh Sharadrao Shirgopikar 3 Umesh Vasantrao Kashikar 4 Inspector of Police, Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur 5 The Competent Authority, Pune ...Respondents Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the petitioner Mr.P.M.Pradhan for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent has since expired. However, as the 2nd respondent appears to be one of the legal representatives of the 1st respondent, the petition is taken up for hearing. 2 An application was made by the 1st and 2nd respondents under section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It was contended in the application filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents that they were owners of the suit premises and that the 2nd respondent was inducted as a licencee under the leave and licence agreement dated 1st April 2 wp4371.sxw 1992 for the purpose of residence. The period of licence was for 11 months which expired on 1st March 1993. It is contended that after expiry of period of licence, the third respondent did not vacate. Therefore, aforesaid application was filed before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority by the impugned Judgment and order allowed the application for eviction and passed the order of eviction against the 2nd respondent. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact the suit premises were let out to the petitioners and when the Competent Authority passed the order of eviction the petitioners were in possession. He pointed out that notice which preceded the filing of the eviction application was not served at the address of the suit premises and therefore, the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings. He pointed out that the petitioners were not parties to the application for eviction, but they were dispossessed on the basis of the impugned Judgment and Order. He submitted that as the petitioners were in possession, they ought to have been heard. He, therefore, submitted that impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Section 13-A-2 was brought on the statute book by amending the said Act providing for a speedy and summary remedy to the landlords to recover possession of premises given on licence on the expiry of licence. Special procedure for disposal of the said applications has been incorporated by Part II-A of the said Act. The title of the Part-II-A-2 is Summary disposal of the certain Applications . Under sub-section (2) of section 31-F forming part of the said part, any person who is aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority can 3 wp4371.sxw file a revision application to this Court. Apart from the fact that statutory remedy of filing a revision application is not availed of by the petitioners, it is obvious that the order of the Competent Authority passed in exercise of summary powers will not bind the petitioners. If the petitioners are claiming to be the tenants, it is for them to file appropriate proceedings for seeking appropriate declaration in that behalf and for restoration of possession. 5 In the circumstances, writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked by the petitioners especially when they have not availed of statutory remedy and moreover, the remedy of establishing their alleged tenancy rights is available to them. 6 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. JUDGE