Vinod Mohanlal Jain v. Munira Jabbar Khan
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 15 Sep 2009
- Bench
- A S OKA
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 s. 16(1)(i)
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Mr.P.J.Thorat i/b.Mr.R.A.Thorat, for petitioner. ......... ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in suits filed for eviction under section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Applications were made by the petitioner before the trial Judge for expediting the hearing of the suits. By the impugned orders, the said applications have been rejected. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a result of the pendency of the suits, the entire scheme of redevelopment undertaken by the petitioner has been stalled and the other tenants/occupants of the property are adversely affected because of the delay. 3] The suits are of the year 2007. The orders passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer for expediting the hearing of the suits are discretionary orders. No interference can be made with such orders in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. KBP 6878-09.sxw 3 4] Writ Petitions are rejected. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply afresh before the trial court for expediting the hearing of the suits. Such applications can be made after expiry of a period of six months from today. If such applications are made, the trial court shall decide the same on merits without being influenced by this order. If the issues are not yet framed, the trial court will proceed to frame the issues.
( A.S.OKA, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 16(1)(i); Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Sep 2009. The bench was A S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.