The Nagpur Popular Book Shop, Thr. ... vs Manohar Ramdas Burudkar (Dead) ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11665 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:16481



                 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                             1/22


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.1645/2023


                 PETITIONER :                  The Nagpur Popular Book Shop,
                                               through its Manager Vilas Todkar,
                                               aged about - 72 yrs., Having
                                               address at Hill Top Lodge Building,
                                               opposite Patwardhan High School,
                                               Sitabuldi, Nagpur - 440012.

                                              -VERSUS-

                 RESPONDENTS:            1.    Manohar Ramdas Burudkar (Dead)
                 (Original Plaintiffs)         through his legal heirs.

                                         1.1. Smt.   Shanta    wd/o    Manohar
                                              Buradkar      aged about 59 years,
                                              Occ. Household,

                                         1.2. Sau. Suchitra w/o Prafulla Dakhole,
                                              aged about 36 yrs., Occ. Household,

                                         1.3. Pravin s/o Manohar Buradkar, aged
                                              about 35 yrs., Occ. Business,

                                         1.4. Sau. Priti w/o Shekhar Lande, aged
                                              about 30 yrs., Occ. Household,

                                         1.5. Nishant s/o Manohar Buradkar, aged
                                              about 26 yrs., Occ. Business,

                                               (All legal heirs of Original Plaintiff
                                               Late    Shri    Manohar      Ramdas
                                               Burudkar)

                                               All resident of Hill Top Lodge,
                                               Opposite Patwardhan High School,
                                               Sitabuldi, Nagpur-440012.



                 KHUNTE
 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                                                    2/22


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Mr. T.D.Mandlekar, counsel for the petitioner.
            Mr. V.G.Bhamburkar, counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
                    Date of reserving the judgment   : 03/11/2023
                    Date of pronouncing the judgment : 10/11/2023

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. Writ Petition No.3221/2023 and Writ Petition

No.1952/2021, one by the landlord and one by the tenant, both

challenging the judgment and decree in Fair Rent proceedings

between the same parties have also been heard and are being

separately decided.

4. This petition questions the judgment passed by the

Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit

No.105/2012, dated 09/09/2019 under Section 16(1)(g) of the

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 3/22

Maharashtra Rent Control Act ('MRC Act' for short hereinafter),

granting a decree for eviction and the judgment dated

12/01/2023, in Regular Civil Appeal No.422/2019, by the learned

District Judge, dismissing the Appeal by the tenant. A challenge is

also raised to the orders below Exhibits-35, 37, 40 and 41 dated

12/01/2023, rejecting all these applications.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as the 'landlord' and the 'tenant'.

6. It is not in dispute that the suit premises is a shop

No.2-Southern side shop, on the ground floor of the building

situated on Nehru Marg, opposite Patwardhan High School at

Sitabuldi, Nagpur bearing House No.291 [old] 386 [new] within

the limits of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. The

ownership of the shop premises by the landlord is not disputed,

nor is it disputed that the tenant is running his business therein

under the name and style of "Nagpur Popular Book Shop". It is

also not disputed that the tenancy is since 15/09/1986.

KHUNTE
 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                            4/22

7. There appears to be a dispute regarding the area of

the shop, which the landlord claims to be 645 sq. feet, including

the mezzanine floor, which is claimed to be 450 sq. feet by the

tenant, including the mezzanine floor. That dispute however may

not be germane, to the present proceedings as the claim is for

eviction from the entire shop No.2, by the landlord. The monthly

rent of the shop No.2 is Rs.900/- per month inclusive of

corporation taxes and exclusive of electricity consumption charges.

The tenancy is governed by the English calendar month and

commences on 1st of each month.

8. The suit was initially initiated by Manohar Ramdas

Buradkar, upon whose demise on 27/12/2012, his legal

representatives were brought on record.

9. The landlord, had earlier initiated a suit namely RCS

No.602/2002, against the tenant, claiming a decree for eviction

for the bonafide need for his elder son Praveen, which came to be

dismissed on 27/11/2009, an appeal against which RCA

No.68/2010 by the landlord also came to be dismissed on

02/05/2014. However, before the dismissal of RCA No.68/2010,

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 5/22

the landlord had filed RCS No.105/2012, a suit for eviction under

section 16(1)(g) of the MRC Act, on 13/03/2012, for the

bonafide need of his second son Nishant, which came to be

decreed on 09/09/2019, the appeal against which RCA

No.422/2019, having been dismissed on 07/02/2023, this petition

has been filed by the tenant.

10. In RCS No.105/2012, two witnesses came to be

examined on behalf of the landlord, namely Nishant Buradkar as

PW-1 vide Ex.14 and Praveen Buradkar as PW-2 at Ex.51. The

tenant had examined himself at Ex.57, and had filed the

deposition of Praveen in RCS No.602/2004, deposition of Parvez

Khan vide Ex.65, certified copy of judgment and decree in RCS

No.602/2004 vide Ex.67, certified copy of judgment in RCA

No.68/2010 vide Ex.71 and several other documents as noted by

the learned Small Causes Court in para 10 of its judgment.

11. The main bulwark of challenge by the tenant is that

when the earlier RCS No.602/2004, in which bonafide need was

claimed by the landlord for his son Praveen was pending due to

pendency of RCA No.68/2010, the subsequent suit RCS

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 6/22

No.105/2012, claiming a bonafide need for his second son Nishant

came to be filed, which according to Mr.Mandlekar, learned

counsel for the tenant, was not permissible in law. It is his

contention that the need for the second son Nishant, ought to have

been claimed in the original RCS No.602/2004, itself or at the

most after RCA No.68/2010 and the consequent writ petition

which may have arisen due to its decision. The filing of RCS

No.105/2012, on 13/03/2012, when the lis in RCS No.602/2004,

was yet to culminate finally, according to him was not permissible

in law.

12. In my considered opinion, this argument is totally

misconceived for the need of the second son Nishant, who was

aged 26 years when his affidavit evidence came to be filed on

10/08/2012, to start the business of a restaurant was an

independent need and had nothing to do with the need of the

elder son Praveen, on account of whose need, the earlier suit

bearing RCS No.602/2004, was filed in the year 2004. There is no

restriction in the provisions of the MRC Act, which requires the

separate and independent need of all members of the family to be

pleaded at the same time, though on account of prudence and to

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 7/22

save time spent in the litigation, it would be advisable for the

same to be pleaded together in one suit itself. However, there

being no statutory bar in this regard, nothing prevents the

landlord pleading the need for his sons separately in separate

suits. That apart, the need pleaded for Praveen in RCS

No.602/2004, was in the year 2004, at which time calculating

reversely the age to Nishant which was 26 years in 2012, would

have been 18 years, when he must have been a college going

student. In view of the above factual position, the proposition as

laid down in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co.

reported in (2001) 8 SCC 397; Godrej and Boyce MFG Co. Ltd. v.

Sridhar Jagannath Nerurkar reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 1097

and Kumud Kumar v. Central Bank of India reported in (2000) 9

SCC 244 are of no assistance to the argument canvassed by

Mr.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus I, do not

see any merit in this contention. The same is therefore rejected.

13. It is then contended by Mr. Mandlekar, learned

counsel for the tenant, that (a) the bonafide need was not proved;

(b) the evidence on record was not considered; (c) the position of

comparative hardships was not considered; (d) there was no

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 8/22

disclosure of the other properties owned by the landlord-House

No.223 behind suit building; (e) earlier there was restaurant

business run by the landlord which was closed down-if there was

need the same ought not to have been closed down; (f) evidence

of Parvez (Ex.103) in earlier suit, indicated that the premises

which he had vacated in front of the building - was let out to

flower shop owner Manoj Ambule which was not considered; (g)

One Malode, who also was a tenant, had vacated, and therefore

there was no need; (h) the application under Order XLI Rules 31

& 33 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Ex.40 (pg.286) was rejected

and (i) the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC at Ex.35

(pg.275) for leading additional evidence was also rejected without

any reason; all of which indicate the absence of bonafide need and

comparative hardship with the tenant was more and therefore the

petition needs to be allowed.

14. Mr.Mandlekar, learned Counsel for the tenant, has

placed reliance upon the following judgments.

Sr.No. Case Laws

1. Vivek Trimbakrao Paturkar Vs. Sow.Sulochanabai {2022 SCC OnLine BOM 441} decided on 04/03/2022

2. Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani Vs. Shri Durgashankar G. Shroff Decided on 12/08/2022 -

KHUNTE
 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                       9/22

3. Bismilla Bee W/o Sk. Chand Vs. Mohd. Anwar Akhtar {2010 (2) Mh.L.J. - Decided on14/12/2009

4. Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222, decided on 30/07/1999

5. G.C.Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin (2002) 1 SCC 610 decided on 20/11/2001

6. Smt. Dwarkadevi Wd/o Jagdisgprasad Chaudhary Vs. Narsingdas s/o Rampratap Sharma 1987 SCC OnLineBom 1, decided on 04/01/1987

7. Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah (2001) 8 SCC 718, decided on 31/10/2001, Para 8

8. Union Bank of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148, decided on 17/07/2012

9. Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman (2016) 13 SCC 124, decided on 29/06/2016

10. K.Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy (1964) 2 SCR 35, decided on 12/02/1963

11. K. R. Mohan Reddy Vs. Net Work Inc. (2007) 14 SCC 257, decided on 26/09/2007

12. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (2008) 8 SCC 511, decided on 11/04/2008

13. Mahavir Singh Vs. Naresh Chandra (2001) 1 SCC 309, decided on 08/11/2000

14. Phool Chand Jain Vs. Smt.Jotri Devi Jain 2001 SCC OnLine 698, decided on 18/07/2001

15. Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil Vs. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 decided on 09/12/1986

16. Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccgaram (1974) 1 SCC 242, decided on 30/11/1973

17. Thimmappa Rai Vs. Ramanna Rai (2007) 14 SCC 63, decided on 09/05/2007

18. Vice Chairman Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Girdharilal yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325, decided on 28/04/2004

19. Avtar Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh (2006) 12 SCC 552,

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 10/22

decided on 04/12/2006

20. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Co.

(2001) 8 SCC 397, decided on 27/08/2001

21. Godrej and Boyce MFG.Co.Ltd. Vs. Sridhar Jagannath Nerurkar, 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. decided on 06/07/2002 Para-8

22. Kumud Kumar Vs. Central Bank of India and others, (2000) 9 SCC 244

15. In so far as disclosure of other properties are

concerned, it would be material to note that no document has

been produced on record by the tenant indicating that the

landlord owns other properties in the locality, which are more

suitable for the need pleaded. The contention regarding House

No.223, even if accepted, would indicate that it is a building on

the back side of House No.386, the building on the ground floor of

which the suit shop is situated and therefore would clearly not be

suitable for the need of the landlord for running a restaurant, for

which need is claimed.

16. What is also necessary to be noted is that the suit

shop, is on the ground floor of the House No.386, from the upper

portion/floors of which the landlord is running a lodge by name

'Hill Top Lodge', and a restaurant for the occupants of the lodge, is

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 11/22

obviously an ideal business. The suit shop is situated on the

ground floor of the building from which the lodge is being run and

thus would be ideally suited for the purposes of the landlord,

besides which the House No.386, is on the main road, as

compared to House No.223, which is on the back side. Thus, the

plea that any right which the tenant claims the landlord to have in

House No.223, not having been disclosed, would be of no

consequences, considering that the suit shop is situated on the

ground floor of the House No.386, from the upper floors of which

the lodge business is being run by the landlord, which is on the

main road.

17. The plea that earlier the landlord was running a

restaurant and ought not to have closed it down, is neither here

nor there, as the place from where it was being operated and

circumstances in which it was required to be closed down, have

not been brought on record by the tenant.

18. It is also material to note that there are only two shop

blocks on the ground floor of House No.386, one on the Northern

side, which is Shop No.1, is occupied by the brother of the

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 12/22

landlord, from where he is doing his own business of furniture,

which is demonstrated by the evidence of Parvez [Ex.103 in RCS.

No.602/2004] and the other is occupied by the tenant.

19. Though reliance is being placed upon the evidence of

Parvez in RCS No.602/2004, it is material to note that the area

occupied by Manoj Ambule, who is running a flower business, is in

the front margin of the plot and is a tin tapari, as already held by

me in the connected petitions, based upon the cross-examination

of the tenant, and is admeauring 4.5 ft x 6.5 ft. = 29.25 sq.ft.,

which does not appear to be sanctioned by the Planning Authority

and can by no stretch of imagination be held to be appropriate for

the need of the landlord for starting the restaurant business.

Similar is the case of the portion in the front margin, claimed to be

occupied by Mr.Malode, both of which are not situated in the

building in which the shop of the tenant is situated and are

covered by cement sheets, according to the evidence of Parvez.

Ultimately, the landlord is the best judge of his need and a tenant

cannot dictate how and in what manner the need can be satisfied.

KHUNTE
 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                             13/22

20. Considering the need pleaded for son Nishant, for

starting a restaurant which would in fact be conducive to the

already existing business of running a lodge from the upper floors

of the same building, the need clearly appears to be bonafide, and

the findings rendered by the Courts below, are reasoned ones

taking into consideration the relevant factors as applicable thereto.

21. Though Vivek Trimbak Paturkar and Tarachand

Hasaram Shamdasani (supra) have been relied upon by

Mr.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, which hold that

the landlord should plead details of his properties and then state

his requirement, which indicate a disclosure of all the properties

owned by him. Shiv Sarup Gupta (supra) holds that the need of

the landlord should be genuine and honest. G.C.Kapoor (supra)

holds that the requirement must be honest and not tainted with

oblique motive. Smt.Dwarkadevi Wd/o Jagdishprasad Choudhary

(supra) holds that mere desire is not enough and the need should

be genuine. Kempaiah (supra) holds that the word "require"

implies something more than mere wish or desire of the landlord

and there ought to be element "must have" in relation to the

requirement of bonafide need pleaded. In the instant case, the

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 14/22

existence of the house on the back side namely House No.223 has

already come on record, and being in the back-lane, is clearly not

suitable for the purpose of running a business of restaurant for the

occupants of the lodge, which is in House No.386 and therefore,

this cannot be a ground, on which the need as established on

record by the landlord can be said to have been nullified. It has

also come on record that the landlord was indeed running a

business of restaurant earlier in point of time which would

indicate, that son Nishant for whom the need is being pleaded, is

not aligned to the said business. The entire struggle of the

landlord for recovery of the premises, from 2004 till date indicates

that the need, is not a mere wish or desire, but is genuine and

bonafide.

22. Much has been said about comparative hardship and

the hardship of the tenant being more. True section 16(2) of the

MRC Act, requires the Court to take into consideration

comparative hardships, however its assessment is always factual

and there cannot be any formula derived for the same. In the

instant case, the tenant has been occupying the tenanted shop,

since 1986. The sons of the landlord, who were not even born

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 15/22

then, have now become major and have a need to start their own

business. Over a passage of time, even the original landlord, who

had initiated the proceedings has passed away. His struggle to get

back the premises for the need of his sons has nearly seen two

decades. True that the earlier suit filed by the landlord for the

need of his elder son Praveen was dismissed, however that does

not mean that the need, now for the second son cannot be put

forth. As indicated above, both the Courts have concurrently held

that the need as pleaded for the second son by the landlord was

bonafide and have granted permission. The suit shop is the only

property on the ground floor which is suitable and available for

the restaurant business. The area of the suit shop is also not of

such a magnitude that it can be divided into two and in the

divided portion the restaurant can be run by the landlord, the

same being only 450 sq.ft. according to the tenant, whereas

according to the landlord, it is 645 sq.ft. The two structures in the

front margin which have been let to Manoj Ambule for a flower

shop and the other shed which was earlier occupied by Mr.

Malode, which is now vacant, are in fact illegal temporary

structures, which are not part of the building, which is evident

from the evidence of Manoj Ambule himself, and thus cannot be

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 16/22

said to something suitable for running the business of a

restaurant. At the same time, the tenant since 2004 was aware of

the need of the landlord and could have searched for alternate

premises, either in the same locality or anywhere else, which has

not been done by him. The tenant has enjoyed the premises for

more than 35 years and when the need has been established for

the son of the landlord, ought to yield to such need. The learned

Small Causes Court has considered this question in paras 35 to 39

of its judgment and the learned Appellate Court in paras 14 and

15 (pg.71-72) of its judgment, and in my opinion, in the correct

perspective, which findings need no interference.

22-A. Bismilla Bee Sk. Chand; (supra) indicates that

Section 16(2) of the MRC Act contemplates an enquiry regarding

the comparative hardships. As indicated in para supra, both the

Courts below have considered the position of comparative

hardships, by applying their mind to the position availing on

record and have arrived at a finding that the hardships would be

more to the landlord than to the tenant, considering which it is

apparent that the enquiry as required by law has indeed been

made by the Courts below.

KHUNTE
 WP-1645.23-Judgment                                            17/22

23. The next plea which needs consideration is the

rejection of the application under Order XLI Rules 31 and 33 of

CPC [Ex.40] by the learned Appellate Court. By Ex.40, the tenant

requested the Appellate Court to frame as many as 10 points for

its determination, which according to him, needed determination.

The learned Appellate Court by its order dated 12.01.2023

(pg.286) rejected the application by holding that several of the

points which were raised were covered under one head or the

other and therefore were not required to be independently framed

and that it would consider the points for determination in light of

the requirements of Order XLI Rules 31 & 33 of CPC. Looking to

the nature of the points as raised in para 8(1) to 8(10) of the

application at Ex.40, and the language of Order XLI Rules 31 & 33

of CPC, in my considered opinion, Order XLI Rule 31 has no

applicability. Insofar as Rule 33 of Order XLI of CPC is concerned,

the same empowers the Court of Appeal to pass any decree and

makes such order which ought to have been passed, which again

has no applicability insofar as the fact position availing on record

is concerned, as the Courts below have applied their mind and

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 18/22

given reasons for arriving at a conclusion for granting the decree

for eviction on account of bonafide need.

24. That takes me to the rejection of the applications at

Ex.35-for permission to examine three additional witnesses; Ex.

37-for production of additional documents, i.e judgments and

orders in previous litigation; Ex.41-application to file documents,

i.e. judgment in CRA No.17/2014 decided on 09/02/2021 and

paper book in RCA No.68/2010 on record. The reason for all of

this was mistake of Counsel. In so far as Ex.37 is concerned, the

same sought to place on record the documents relating to the

litigation between the landlord and tenant for determining the fair

rent of the shop premises in occupation of the tenant and the

earlier litigation in RCS No.602/2004, including the evidence of

Parvez as recorded therein. In my considered opinion, most of the

documents in RCS No.602/2004, were already filed by the tenant

on record at the time of his evidence, which is evident from his

examination-in-chief and therefore these were mere repetitions,

barring a few, which did not have any bearing on the matter in

issue of bonafide need. Though the rejection is on the ground that

the blame placed on the erstwhile counsel was not justified,

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 19/22

however even considering the nature of the documents, it would

be apparent that the Court below had already considered the

import and effect of the earlier litigation RCS No.602/2004 and

the evidence as recorded therein and therefore nothing turned

upon the documents sought to be filed and the application below

Ex.35. The rejection therefore is clearly justified, though on

different grounds.

25. In so far as the application at Ex.41-to file judgment

in CRA No.17/2014 and paper book in RCS No.68/2010 is

concerned, it would be material to note that RCA No.68/2010,

arose out of RCS No.602/2004, and therefore all the documents

and pleadings in RCS No.602/2004 were already on record. In so

far as judgment in CRA No.17/2014 decided on 09/02/2021 is

concerned, the same arose out of MJC No.28/2005 filed by the

landlord for fixing the fair rent of the suit shop, which was fixed

by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur at

Rs.12,000/- per month, which was confirmed by dismissal of the

CRA No.17/2014 by the learned Revisional Court by the judgment

dated 09/02/2021 (pg. 248), thereby confirming the fair rent

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 20/22

fixed and therefore had no bearing altogether on the issue of

bonafide need.

26. The Application at Ex.37 was for production of

additional evidence/documents/court orders, in appeal, all of

which again were the same documents as were sought to be filed

under Ex.35 & 41, relating to the old litigation between the parties

and the documents in RCS No.298/2011 between the landlord

and Manoj Ambule, which were already on record (pg.262-267).

Thus, the rejection also cannot faulted with.

27. Though Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin; Union of

India v. Lakshman; K.Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy;

K.R.Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc.; North Eastern Railway

Administration v. Bhagwan Das; Mahavir Singh v. Naresh

Chandra; Phool Chand Jain v. Smt.Jotri Devi Jain and Shivajirao

Nilangekar Patil v. Dr.Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (supra) have been

relied upon by Mr.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the tenant, in

support of his contentions that Ex.35, 37 & 41 ought to have been

allowed, and the propositions as laid down therein cannot be

disputed, however considering the factual position as enumerated

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 21/22

above, in my considered opinion, these are not of any assistance to

the case canvassed by the tenant, as not a single document has

been brought to my attention by Mr. Mandlekar, learned counsel

for the tenant, to point out that the same had any bearing upon

the issue of bonafide need and non-consideration has caused any

prejudice to the tenant. The rejection for this reason also cannot

be faulted with, though the grounds are different.

28. Though Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Iccgaram;

Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai; Vice-Chairman, Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav and Avtar Singh v.

Gurdial Singh (supra) have been relied upon to contend that

there is an admission by the tenant in the earlier suit namely RCS

No.602 of 2004, regarding the suit bearing RCS No.298 of 2011

between the landlord and one Manoj Ambule, being a tenant,

which is claimed to not to have been considered, the judgment in

appeal in paras-11 and 13 specifically considered this position.

The judgment of the learned Trial Court also considered this in

para-22 and goes on to hold the establishment of the bonafide

need. It is also necessary to note that the property bearing House

No.223 and its non-availability has also been considered by the

KHUNTE WP-1645.23-Judgment 22/22

learned Trial Court (para-33). It is therefore, apparent that the

plea that an admission has not been considered does not hold any

water.

29. In light of the above discussion, I, do not see any

reason to interfere in the impugned judgments of the Courts

below. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Considering

the circumstance there shall be no order as to costs.

30. Rule stands discharged.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Later on -

At this stage, Ms T. V. Fadnavis, learned counsel holding for Mr.T.D.Mandlekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks stay of execution proceedings for a period of eight weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court.

2. Mr. Bhamburkar, learned counsel for the respondents, is not present.

3. Considering that there was a stay during the pendency of the present petition by the order dated 16/03/2023 to the Darkhast No.135 of 2019, the same shall continue for a period of four weeks from today, after expiry of which, it will stand automatically vacated.

                                                                   (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2023 17:56:13       KHUNTE