Allowed

Vishwas Panditrao Jape v. Shrikant Bhagwan Phadnis

Bombay HC23 Mar 2009WP/1631/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to set aside an Appellate Court order that rejected a request to frame issues on the licensor-licensee relationship. The Court directed the Appellate Court to frame two specific points of issue on the relationship and the consequential jurisdiction of the Rent Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Judgment and order overturned; Application allowed directing Appellate Court to frame two points of issue regarding relationship and Rent Court jurisdiction.

Vishwas Panditrao Jape Vs Shrikant Bhagwan Phadnis — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1631 OF 2009

¶5

 Shri V.P.Jape ..Petitioner.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 Shri S.B.Phadnis ..Respondent.

¶8

 Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Mr.R.M.Pethe for Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.A.P.Vanarse for Respondent.

¶10

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶11

 DATE : MARCH 23, 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶14

 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by

¶15

 consent. Mr.Vanarase waives notice for Respondent.
 As short question is involved, Petition is taken up
 for final disposal forthwith by consent.

¶16

 3. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

¶17

 Constitution of the India takes exception to the
 Judgment and Order passed by the District Judge dated
 4th December, 2008 below Exh. 21 in Civil Appeal
 No.553 of 2006. By the said application, the
 Petitioner requested the Appellate Court to frame
 point of issue as to whether relationship between the

¶18

¶19

 Petitioner and Respondent was that of licensee and
 licensor as contended by him. If the said issue was
 to be answered in favour of the Petitioner, the Court
 would naturally have to address the consequential
 issue about jurisdiction of the rent court to
 entertain suit for possession against the Petitioner
 who was only the licensee. The Appellate Court has
 found that such plea is taken in the Written
 Statement by the Petitioner is not in dispute. The
 Appellate Court however, rejected the Petitioner’s
 application merely on the ground that the Petitioner
 had ample opportunity to raise such ground before the
 trial Court itself. This opinion clearly overlooks
 the position emerging from the record that the
 Petitioner did raise the said issue in the Written
 Statement itself and also in the arguments canvassed
 before the Trial Court in that behalf which however,
 were negatived by the Trial Court. Appropriateness
 of that stand therefore, will now have to be
 addressed by the Appellate Court in the Appeal
 preferred by the Petitioner.

¶20

 4. In the circumstances, impugned Judgment and
 order is overturned and instead the Application
 preferred by the Petitioner Exh. 21 is allowed by
 directing the Appellate Court following additional to

¶21

¶22

 frame two points in issue for its consideration:

¶23

 1) Whether the defendant proves that the
 relationship between the parties was that of

¶24

 licensor and licensee ?

¶25

 2) If yes, Whether the Rent Court has
 jurisdiction to entertain suit filed by the
 Plaintiff for possession on the assertion
 that the relationship between the parties was

¶26

 that of landlord and tenant ?

¶27

 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶28

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Vishwas Panditrao Jape v. Shrikant Bhagwan Phadnis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas Panditrao Jape v. Shrikant Bhagwan Phadnis

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

Maruti Krishna Patil Vs Vimal Maruti Patil

Minoo Rustomji Joshi (Decd.) by Lrs.- Freni R. Joshi Vs Bahadur D. Todiwala (Decd.)- Prochi Bahadur Gandhi and Ors.

Andrew Minoo Rutsom Joshi Vs Prachi Bahadur Gandhi and Ors.

Shri J.B.Chavan Vs Shri v.R.Ladkat and Others.

Krishnanath Gendalal Chawan and Ors. Vs Shri Vasant Rambhau Ladkat and Ors.

Chandrakant Dhonbia Mahamuni Vs Kaushalya Rajaram Galange (Decd.)by Lrs. - Hanmanant Rajaram Galange and Ors.