Disposed

Smt. Savitri Timappa Naik Rep by Her Son Mr. Naguesh Timappa Naik v. Shri Kestur Siddalingappa and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2008LPA/3/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a letter patent appeal against an order made in writ proceedings as withdrawn by consent. The court did not decide the preliminary objections regarding maintainability but kept the legal question open, directing parties to appear before the Rent Controller.

What did the court decide?

Letter patent appeal and civil application disposed of as withdrawn by consent.

Smt. Savitri Timappa Naik Rep by Her Son Mr. Naguesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 131/2008

¶4

SMT. SAVITRI TIMAPPA NAIK REP.

¶5

BY HER SON MR. NAGUESH TIMAPPA NAIK. .......... APPELLANT.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SHRI KESTUR SIDDALINGAPPA AND 3 OTHERS.

¶8

.......... RESPONDENTS.

¶9

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Mordekar, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & N.A. BRITTO, J.

¶12

DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, at the outset, raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the present letter patent appeal. Firstly, the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the order thereupon is not appeallable. Secondly, the order of remand to the Rent Controller is merely a procedural order and it

¶15

¶16

is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and that it is settled principle of law that the Court cannot adjudge the petition and treat it as filed under one or the other Article of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the order is a final determination, as proceedings before this Court would terminate and the order of remand to the Rent Controller, therefore, is a Judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that principle of law stated in the petition is going to have far reaching consequences and in effect it is the settled principle of law.

¶17

Be that as it may, we do not propose to discuss or otherwise determine the issue before us in the present appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant states that he would not press this petition if the question of law stated here is kept open and not treated as binding precedent for the Courts under jurisdiction of this High Court and would appear before the Rent Controller provided the proceedings before the Rent Controller are completed expeditiously. We find that the request made on behalf of the appellant is just, fair and proper. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 also has no objection for passing such an order.

¶18

¶19

3-. In view of the consent given by the learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal as withdrawn. The question of law is kept open and would not be treated as precedent and shall be adjudicated upon in an appropriate case. The parties would appear before the Rent Controller on 5^th August, 2008, on which date the Rent Controller shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law, within one month from that date. If any of the parties wishes to challenge the order passed by the Rent Controller before the Administrative Tribunal, in that event, the Tribunal shall also conclude the proceedings within three months and after pronouncing the order, shall supply a copy of the order immediately to the parties concerned. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. In view thereof, the civil application does not survive for consideration and is also disposed of as such.

¶20

SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ.

¶21

N.A. BRITTO, J.

¶22

ssm.

Smt. Savitri Timappa Naik Rep by Her Son Mr. Naguesh Timappa Naik v. Shri Kestur Siddalingappa and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savitri Timappa Naik Rep by Her Son Mr. Naguesh Timappa Naik v. Shri Kestur Siddalingappa and 3 Ors.

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

Shridhar Ramachandra Naik Gaunekar (Deceased) and 4 Ors., Vs Deputy Collector and S.D.O. Ponda Sub Division

Shri. Leonardo Lobo Vs State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Shri. Fernando Joel D'Costa through Attorney Antonio Menino Teotonio Duzerino Colaco Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Communidade of Chicalim by Attorney Ashok Yeshu Sankwalkar Vs Collector and District Magistrate South Goa and Anr.

Mr. Manuel Da Costa, Curtorim, Salcete Goa. Vs Mr. Easo Koshy and 3 Ors.

Smt. Savitri Timappa Naik Rep by Her Son Mr. Naguesh Timappa Naik Vs Shri Kestur Siddalingappa and 3 Ors.