PETITION NO. 4690 OF 2009 (Sk. Ismail (deceased) through Lrs Shakila Begum & Ors. v. Sayeedkhan Gulabkhan) Office Notes

Heard Shri Gulhane, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Khandalkar, learned counsel for the respondent. The present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed on 20.08.2009 taking exception to the judgment dated 18.06.2004 delivered by District Judge, Nagpur, in Appeal under Section 26-A of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1987. The Small Causes Court as also appellate Court are concurrently against the petitioners and decree for their eviction is granted. The contention earlier was that the Small Causes Court did not possess jurisdiction and hence decree is void, therefore, notice came to be issued. Shri Khandalkar, learned counsel for the respondent – landlord has pointed out that in Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2005 before Small Causes Court, petitioner made a statement that writ petition is pending before the High Court against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 566 of 1996 and Regular Civil Appeal 2 No. 482 of 1999. In view of this statement, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, directed the defendant, who made that statement, to submit number of writ petition and file his affidavit. He was given time to file copy of that writ petition. The matter came to be adjourned. Shri Khandalkar, learned counsel points out that no writ petition was pending at that time and writ petition came to be filed thereafter. Shri Gulhane, learned counsel states that statement made by the petitioner (defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 83 of 2005) was about pendency of writ petition challenging the orders passed by Rent Control authorities. The order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court is very clear and hence this explanation given by the counsel cannot be accepted. On merits, there are no circumstances explained to justify laches in the matter. The reliance is being placed on Section 5 of Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as MHADA Act), to urge that premises belonged to or vests in MHADA authority. However, how premises vests in MHADA authority or belonged to MHADA authority, has not been demonstrated. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. *GS. JUDGE