LAXMIKANT GANPAT SANKPAL Vs. VIJAYKUMAR ANANT DHEKANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the petitioner is the same and the controversy that arose for consideration in both these petitions is same. Therefore, both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. It is undisputed before me that in both these petitions the courts below have reached the conclusion that the petitioner does not have title to the suit premises because he has not been able to establish that his adoption by the original landlady was legal and valid. Thus it is clear that both the courts below under the Bombay Rent Act have held that the Petitioner does not have title to the suit premises. Section 29(A) of the Bombay Rent Act lays down that the pronouncement made by the courts under the Bombay Rent Act do not bar a party filing suit before the competent court to establish his title to such premises. Therefore, the pronouncement made by the Court under the Bombay Rent Act which are courts of limited jurisdiction in relation to title to immovable properties is final and the remedy of filing the civil suit on title is open to the petitioner. Therefore, as remedy of filing a civil suit on title in view of section 29A of the Bombay Rent Act is available to the petitioner, in my opinion, it would not be proper for me to entertain these petitions because of availability of a remedy of filing a civil suit.

(2.) In the result, both the petitions therefore, fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.