WP – 9770/12 v. Twinder Pal Anand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
(I) The impugned order is quashed and set aside
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ss. 24, 44
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The revisional authority refused to grant stay on the ground that the period of licence has already expired. The case of the Petitioner is that he is in possession of the suit premises not in the capacity of licensee but as an owner and…
Judgment
Mr. Tulsidas Nair, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. Lokesh D. Zade with Mr. Desai for Respondent No. 1. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 17, 2012. P. C. :
Heard the Petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
The Petitioner challenges the order of the additional commissioner under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 refusing to grant stay to the order passed by the Competent Authority under section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. On 6th September 2009, the Competent Authority, Kokan Division allowed 1st respondent's application under section 24 of the said Act and the Petitioner is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to 1st Respondent. The Petitioner is also directed to pay arrears of compensation at Rs.22,000/- per month from patilsr WP – 9770/12. November 2010 to October 2011 and further to pay Rs.44,000/- per month from November 2011 till handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to 1st Respondent. The Petitioner is also directed to pay to 1st Respondent compensation of Rs.3 lacs. This order is challenged by the Petitioner by filing revision, being Revision No.480 of 2012 under section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai. In this revision, an application for stay was made, which came to be rejected by the impugned order.
Operative part
The revisional authority refused to grant stay on the ground that the period of licence has already expired. The case of the Petitioner is that he is in possession of the suit premises not in the capacity of licensee but as an owner and he claims ownership rights. The revisional authority failed to consider that refusal of stay to the order of the Competent Authority will render the petitioner's revision infructuous. The revisional authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, should have granted stay subject to the patilsr WP – 9770/12. Petitioner's depositing in the Court certain amount, at least 50% of the amount directed to be paid by the Competent Authority. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of on following terms : (I) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. (ii) The order passed by the Competent Authority on 6th September 2012 shall remain stayed during the pendency and till the disposal of Revision No.480 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner subject to the Petitioner's depositing before the Revisional authority an amount equivalent to 50% of the amount directed by the Competent Authority. (iii)The deposit of amount before the Revisional authority within the period of six weeks from today is condition precedent and In the event of Petitioner's failure to deposit the amount within stipulated period, stay granted to the order of the Competent Authority will automatically stand vacated. (RANJIT MORE, J.) patilsr
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (I) The impugned order is quashed and set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — ss. 24, 44.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Oct 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.