In Writ Petitions 1769/2521 of 2009, this court dismissed the writ petitions challenging orders passed in a landlord-tenant suit, holding that the Rent Court has exclusive jurisdiction and the writ jurisdiction was not inclined to be exercised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Lsp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1769 of 2009
| M/s. Padma | rekha Arts | ...Pet | itioner | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v/s | ||||
| Mahila Sev & ors. |
. a Mandal, Pune |
...Res | pondents | |
| WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2521 OF 2009 |
||||
| Simply Deli | cious v/s. |
...Pet | itioner | |
| Mahila Sev | a Mandal, Pune & ors. | ...Res | pondents | |
| Mr. Tejesh Mr. Nitin P. |
Dande for the petitioner. Deshpande for respondents 2, 3 & 5. |
|||
| CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 |
||||
| P.C. | ||||
| . | Heard Counsel for the parties. | |||
| 2. | During the arguments Counsel for the Petitioner has | |||
| restricted | challenge only to orders |
passed | below | Exhibit |
| 42 | and Exhibit 59 respectively. |
Application | Exhibit |
42 |
| was fil |
ed by third party under Order |
I Rule |
10 for |
being |
| impleaded | as party defendant to the suit filed by the | |||
| Petitioner. | ||||
| 3. | It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the | |||
| Petitioner | is essentially between land |
lord and |
tenant | in |
2
| relation | to the |
right | to use |
the | tenanted |
premises. | The |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Court | below | has | rejected | the | application | filed by |
the |
| third | party | on the |
ground | that | he has |
no concern |
with |
the matter in issue in the suit pending between the
landlord and the tenant.
| 4. | In the firs | t place, the said th | ird party | had not | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| challenged | the | correctness | of | that ord |
er. | Assuming | that |
|
| the | Petitioner | has |
locus | to challenge |
the |
said | order | |
| passed | below | Exhibit | 42, | I am in |
agreem | ent | with | the |
| opinion | recorded | by the |
Low |
er Court |
that | the | third | party |
| has | no | concern with |
the |
matters in |
issue | between | the | |
| landlord | and | tenant. | The relief |
that | th | e | Petitioner | |
| would | claim | against | the | third party |
would | be | in | the |
| nature | of | dispute | relating | to civil |
rights | of | the | |
| Petitioner. | That ca |
nnot | be part |
of | the | p | roceedings | |
| pending | bef | ore the |
Rent | Court | whi | ch | has | special |
| exclusive | jurisdiction | t | o adjudicate |
dis |
putes | between |
landlord and tenant only. Thus understood the order
passed below Exhibit 42 warrants no interference.
| 5. | In s | o far as Appl | ication | Exhibit 59 | is conc | erned, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the | same | was | fi | led | by | the Petitioner |
praying | for | |
| amendmen | t | of | the | plead | ings | so as to |
incor | porate | several |
| issues | pointing | out | that | the | third party |
has | developed | ||
| the | other | pro |
perty | of | the | landlord. The |
purpose | of | |
| proposed | amendm | ent | was | to | seek relief a |
gainst | the |
third |
3
| party. | The | Co | urt below |
has | rightl | y rejected |
the |
said |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| proposed | amendment | as that |
had | no | concern | with | the | |
| matter | in issue |
betwee | n the |
landlord | an |
d tenant. |
In | the |
| present | case, | the | Petitio | ner-tena | nt | filed | suit | for |
| perpetual | injunct | ion | against t |
he | landlord | on |
the | basis |
| of | rights in |
respect of |
tenan | ted | premises. | Whereas | ||
| landlord | filed | cou | nter claim |
and | has |
sought |
decree | of |
| eviction | which has |
bee | n granted |
by | the | Lower | Court. | The |
| real | controversy | is | , ther |
efore, | w | hether | the | tenant |
| should | be evi |
cted | from the |
suit | pre |
mises on |
the |
grounds |
| pressed | into | service | by the |
land | lord | and if |
the | said |
| issue | was to |
be | answered | in | favour | of the |
landlord | , the |
question of considering grant of perpetual injunction to
the tenant as prayed would not arise.
exercise writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the
present case. Dismissed.
[A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with the Rent Court's order rejecting the third party application.
Whether the proposed amendment to pleadings seeking relief against the third party falls within the scope of the Rent Court proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Padmarekha Arts
Simply Delicious
Mahila Sev
A.M. KHanwilkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
