Disposed

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

Bombay HC24 Apr 2006WP/8592/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay High Court directed the lower appellate court to dispose of a pending civil revision application concerning standard rent fixation within four months and directed the petitioner to deposit rent.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to lower court to decide within four months and for petitioner to deposit rent.

Taherali Fazal Ali Vs Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.8592 OF 2005

¶5

 Taherali Fazal Ali .. ..Petitioner
 Versus
 Late Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel
 deceased through his heirs & Lrs
 Attiyabano w/o Hidayatulla Patel & Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

 Mr.K.Y.Mandlik for petitioner
 Mr.Nitin Jamdar for respnodent

¶7

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶8

 DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006

¶9

 P.C.:

¶10

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
 Perused the record.

¶11

 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner against
 the order passed by the Addl. District Judge dated
 19.10.2005, below Exh.5, in Civil Revision Application
 No.25 of 2005 which was for fixation of the interim

¶12

 standard rent of the suit premises.

¶13

 : 2 :

¶14

 3. The Revisional Court appears to have taken a view
 that out of two shop premises which are in dispute, the
 petitioner is evidently tenant only in one shop and
 therefore, proceeded to fix the standard rent at the rate
 of Rs.400/= per month. However, it is submitted that the
 real grievance is in respect of the observation made by
 the revisional court while disposing of the application
 to the effect that the applicant cannot claim for
 fixation of interim standard rent in respect of both the
 shop premises described in para 1A and 1B of the
 application and at the most he could claim the interim
 standard rent in respect of the shop premises described
 in para 1B of the application.

¶15

 4. In this regard after hearing both the parties, I
 am of the view that while adjudicating the application
 Exh.6 in Civil Revision NO.25 of 2005 it was not
 necessary for the lower appellate court to make such
 observation especially when the revision application is
 pending final adjudication on merits. Be as it may, the
 position can be repaired by the fact that this
 observation would not come in the way of the petitioner
 while adjudicating the revision application, which is
 pending disposal finally.

¶16

 : 3 :

¶17

 5. In the meantime, it is open for the petitioner to
 deposit the standard rent at the same rate i.e. Rs.400/=
 per month in the trial court in respect of another shop
 described in para 1A of the application, without
 prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the
 parties, especially the present respondent. It is
 further directed that the lower appellate court shall
 expeditiously dispose of the Civil Revision No.25 of 2005
 so as to complete the hearing within four months from the
 date of this order. The deposit to be made by the
 petitioner in the lower court regularly and at the same
 rate as noted earlier. With this direction the petition
 stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶18

 4. The arrears if any also to be deposited within
 four weeks from the date of this order.

¶19

 5. On request of the learned counsel for the
 respondent, it is clarified that all contentions are kept
 open.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak Vs Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Mohammed Adil Attarwala Vs Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Union Bank of India Vs Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.