Devendra B. Arya v. Anant Vithal Kadam & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Sep 2012
- Bench
- RANJIT MORE
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Heard. There is no dispute that the impugned order is revisable under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. However, Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that revision is not efficacious remedy in view of the fact that possession of…
Judgment
Mr. Narula i/b M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil A. Joshi for the Respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 17, 2012. P. C. :
Heard. There is no dispute that the impugned order is revisable under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. However, Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that revision is not efficacious remedy in view of the fact that possession of the suit premises having been already taken. I find no merit in the submission inasmuch as the Petitioner cannot claim restoration of possession which is taken over by the Respondent in execution of the impugned order unless and until the impugned order is set aside and the Petitioner succeeds in revision. It is patilsr 1 of 2 wp-8764/12 submitted that in fact the Petitioner has approached the revisional authority. In the light of above position, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.) patilsr 2 of 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 44.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Sep 2012. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
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.