Writ Petition No. 1413 of 2010 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B P DHARMADHIKARI
Provisions considered
Judgment
Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in evidence, fact of devolving of suit property on original plaintiff (then a minor) in partition proceedings came on record. Therefore, applicability of Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, became known and a contention that tenancy in relation to minor’s property in excess of seven years could not have been created and permission of District Judge was must, was sought to be raised. He further contends that the proceedings before Small Causes Court are under C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order) and after the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act), came into force, the said Rent Control legislation ceased to apply to open lands. The amendment to written statement was sought to incorporate these two grounds and the same has been rejected by the Small Causes Court and in Revision, the Ad-hoc District Judge – 3, Nagpur, has maintained that order.
According to 2 learned counsel, the fact that respondent – plaintiff led some evidence, is totally irrelevant looking to the nature of amendment sought. Shri Jawade, Advocate holding for Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent initially sought time to produce a copy of order by which the matter was remanded for recording evidence on specific issues. After rejection of that request, he states that application of mind by both Courts in this matter is neither erroneous nor perverse and the petition is not maintainable. The facts show that in Writ Petition No. 4736 of 2008, this Court remanded the matter on 15.07.2009 and part of evidence of respondent – plaintiff is also over. The effort of the petitioner is to deny title of the respondent – plaintiff as landlord or in any case to plead illegality of the contract of tenancy by taking recourse to Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
The suit has been admittedly filed after obtaining permission under Rent Control Order and hence subsequent coming into force of Rent Act is of no consequence in the matter. It is, therefore, apparent that the amendments as sought on both grounds are not relevant at all. The application appears to have been moved only to delay consideration of Civil Suit by the Small Causes Court. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. *GS. JUDGE
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.