Dismissed

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak v. Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Bombay HC24 Apr 2006WP/1744/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act regarding a suit decree in the petitioner's favor, the High Court observed no perversity in the lower courts' findings. The petition was dismissed in limine, but the court granted the petitioner time to vacate the premises under an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine; petitioner allowed to vacate the suit premises by April 31, 2007, subject to furnishing an undertaking within two weeks.

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak Vs Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.1744 OF 2006

¶3

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court’s or Judge’s
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders
 orders or directions and
 registrar’s Orders.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.S.N.Chandrachood for petitioner

¶4

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
 DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006
 P.C.:
 1. Heard the learned counsel for the
 petitioner. Perused the record.
 2. The petitioner is a medical
 practitioner, who has challenged the
 concurrent findings recorded by both the
 courts below to the effect that the

¶5

 : 2 :

¶6

 plaintiff has proved that he is requires the
 suit premises bona fide and reasonably for
 his own use and occupation. It was also
 held by both the courts that the plaintiff
 would suffer greater hardship if the decree
 refused to be passed than the defendant if
 the decree is passed and therefore, on such
 and other grounds the suit came to be
 decreed.

¶7

 3. On perusal of judgments of both the
 courts below, I do not see any element of
 perversity or illegality in holding that the
 plaintiff has proved his case contemplated
 under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent
 Act and as such the decree came to be
 passed.

¶8

 4. The learned counsel for the
 petitioner, Mr. Chandrachud, fairly
 conceded at this stage that he would not
 contest the petition if some time is granted
 to vacate the suit premises. In view of the
 concurrent findings recorded by both the

¶9

 : 3 :

¶10

 courts below and in view of the submission

¶11

 made by the learned counsel for the
 petitioner, I hold that the petitioner
 deserves some indulgence in order to vacate
 the premises.

¶12

 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed in

¶13

 limine. However, the petitioner is allowed
 to vacate the suit premises on or before the
 end of April 2007 for which purpose he and
 all adult members of his family shall
 furnish an undertaking to the court with
 condition that they shall not create any

¶14

 third party interest in the suit premises
 during their occupation and shall continue
 to pay the agreed rent during the period of

¶15

 occupancy. The undertaking to be furnished
 within two weeks from the date of this

¶16

 order. With this direction the petition

¶17

 stands disposed of.

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak v. Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak v. Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamudin Chitasaheb Khairdi (Decd) by Lrs. Chandubi Immamuddin Khairadi and Ors. Vs Muslim Pachha Peth and Ors.

Sunanda Arvind Kutwal and Anr. Vs Sankanta Prasad Sharma

The Secretary, Janseva Shikshan Mandal and Anr. Vs Nemade Vilas Dhanaji and Ors.

Mohammed Adil Attarwala Vs Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Union Bank of India Vs Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.

Taherali Fazal Ali Vs Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel (Decd.)by Lrs.-Attiyabano H.Patel and Ors.