Sou.Padmawati Narayan Dandi v. Shri Vithoba Mogalappa Pogul
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by which the revision filed by the petitioner-licensee against the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Competent Authority, under section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999…
Judgment
Sou. Padmawati Narayan Dandi .. Petitioner. Vs. Shri Vithoba Mogalappa Pogul .. Respondent. Mr.Surel S.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Mulye i/b Mr.G.S.Godbole for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 8TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATED : 8TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATED : 8TH NOVEMBER, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
Operative part
This petition is directed against the order dated 26.6.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by which the revision filed by the petitioner-licensee against the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Competent Authority, under section 24 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been dismissed. It is dismissed solely on the ground that the leave as contemplated by section 43 (4)(a) of the said Act within the time stipulated therein to contest the prayer for eviction from the premises had not been sought by the petitioner. This finding has not been disputed by the petitioner. Moreover, I am informed that the order has already been executed and the respondent has taken possession of the suit premises. In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. 2 2 2 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Nov 2006. The bench was D B BHOSALE.
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.