Writ Petition No. 4555 of 2010 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Dec 2010
- Bench
- B P DHARMADHIKARI
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Shailendra Ramraji Srivas ..vs.. Ambadas Hemraj Lanjewar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Mr.K.R.Trivedi Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.P.A.Markandewar Adv. for the resp. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Advocate Mr.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv. Mr.Markandewar, learned counsel for the respondent. By impugned order dated 26/7/2010, 1st Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur has refused to review earlier orders rejecting the application for petitioner/tenant for calling additional witnesses. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that alleged criminal dispute between the parties has no bearing on the suit as filed seeking eviction of the petitioner on account of bona fide need i.e. under Clause 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge impugned orders, after suit is finally decided, before appropriate forum; the present 2 writ petition is disposed of. Amount of Rs.4000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this court is allowed to be withdrawn by him. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Dec 2010. The bench was B P DHARMADHIKARI.
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.