Disposed

Fulshankar Joshi and Ors. v. Subhash Venkatesh Prabhu and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2009WP/1326/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition regarding water charges. Seven tenant petitioners volunteered to pay arrears despite pending landlord-tenant disputes. Court directed landlords to abide by future court orders and permitted restoration of water connection based on landlords' assurance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on terms that tenants pay arrears subject to pending proceedings, landlords abide by future orders, and water connection is restored without landlord consent.

view could have been resolved very easily at the level of landlords and tenant. The landlords are in principal not disputing their liability to contribute water charges to the extent of seven flats occupied by them. Even if they were to contest that position,

tenants have come together and have shown willingness to pay their contribution. There is nothing on record to indicate that other tenants would also support the present tenants who are willing to contribute to the extent of their liability to discharge the arrears of municipal water bills.

3. Counsel for the landlords on the other hand, submits that the landlords are willing to contribute their part of outstanding water bills to the extent of seven flats only. However, that would not resolve the entire controversy till all the tenants were also willing to offer their contribution at the same time. Instead of resolving this stale mate situation, seven tenants who are Petitioners before this Court are willing to take the responsibility of discharging all the outstanding dues towards water charges payable to the Municipality without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the pending proceedings between the landlords and tenants. The payment to be offered by these seven tenants/Petitioners herein towards arrears of water charges will be subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings and the appropriate direction to be issued by the concerned Court at the end of those proceedings, as may be advised. All questions in that behalf are left open.

4. Counsel for the tenants did argue that the tenants have already deposited amount in the lower Court from time to time to the extent of Rs.1,49,400/-. It is not in dispute that the said amount is lying with the lower Court and has not been withdrawn by the landlords. It is also seen that the amount deposited by the 8 tenant is towards monthly rent and permitted increase. For that, composite amount of Rs.300/- per month is payable in respect of each tenement. In that sense, amount which has been deposited by the tenant is not purely ascribable to water charges and for that reason cannot be utilised at this stage.

5. As aforesaid, the payment to be made by the tenants to discharge the outstanding water charges(bills) payable to the Municipal Corporation will be subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings between the landlords and tenants and appropriate orders to be passed by the concerned Courts. The landlords through Counsel assure to abide by the said direction. The landlords further assure through Counsel that the landlords have no objection, if the Petitioners/ tenants were to take the responsibility of restoration of the water

connection in the building or their respective tenements, as the case may be. That assurance is also placed on record. In view of this statement of the landlords as placed on record, the Municipal Officials shall not insist for written consent of the landlords in view of the assurance recorded in this order, which can be treated as consent given for the purpose of restoration of water connection, if such applications were to be made by the Petitioners in that behalf. In view of the above arrangement, no other controversy remains for consideration, which would arise for consideration in the context of RES 5/2008.

connection is restored in the entire building and becomes available also to seven flats occupied by the landlords, for future bills, the landlords shall pay the same periodically and within time after collecting the prorata contribution from the respective tenants. In the event, if any tenant fails to contribute the amount as demanded by the landlords towards future water charges, it will be open to the landlords to request the Municipal Authority to disconnect water supply to the flat/tenement of the concerned tenant.

Fulshankar Joshi and Ors. v. Subhash Venkatesh Prabhu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulshankar Joshi and Ors. v. Subhash Venkatesh Prabhu 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

Ritika M. Chandnani and Anr. Vs Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi and Anr.

M/S. Padmarekha Arts Vs Mahila Seva Mandal, Pune and Ors.

Rajkumar Premraj Somani and Anr. Vs Jaykumar Radhakisan Agrawal and Ors.

Shri Dattatraya Dagdoba Dhole Vs Shri Shaikh Javed Husen Hajrat Saheb and Others

Atmaram Ramsharan Agarwal Vs Prakash Sakharam Dolas and Ors.

Mahesh Shah S/O. Lalji Anandji Vs Prabhakar Keshav and Ors.