Judgment · High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Oct 2012
- Bench
- VASANTI A NAIK
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no
Provisions considered
Judgment
Writ Petition No.2951/2012 [Hasin Ahmed s/o Haji Abdul Sattar .vs. Smt. Vijaya wd/o Chandrakant Donge and others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the Petitioner, Shri Jetha, Advocate for the Respondent No.7, Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.8 and 9. ----- CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : OCTOBER 03, 2012. The only point canvassed on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the judgments passed by both the courts is that the petitioner was admittedly not served with the notice under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming arrears of rent and hence the decree for possession under Section 15 of the Act could not have been granted. The impugned judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate court cannot be set aside on the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It is not an admitted position that the petitioner did not receive the notice sent by the respondents-landlord under section 15 of the Maharashtra
Operative part
3.10.wp2951.12.odt 2 Rent Control Act. There is ample evidence on record that the notice was served on the address where the petitioner admittedly resides. Though the receipt of the notice was acknowledged by one Padamgirwar, the trial and the first appellate court on a consideration of the evidence and on an appreciation of the provisions of the General Clauses Act held that there was proper service of notice on the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the petitioner, the petitioner had failed to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the suit summons. Both the courts, therefore, rightly came to a conclusion that the landlords were entitled to recover the possession of the property under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and the finding of facts in regard to the service of notice cannot be lightly interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in (2010 (3) BCJ 687) – Mohanlal Ukchand Soni .vs. Mandakini Ramchandra Shah and others and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no
3.10.wp2951.12.odt 3 order as to costs. Since this court had granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner in June 2012, on the request by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interim order is continued for a period of two weeks only. At the end of two weeks, the interim order would automatically stand vacated. GULANDE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 15; Rent Control Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 Oct 2012. The bench was VASANTI A NAIK.
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.