This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the High Court's denial of an application to frame additional issues regarding standard rent and termination of tenancy in a vacation suit.
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.
1 W.P.1434.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1434 OF 2013
Murlidhar Vedu Dusane ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Sanmukhlal Govardhandas Shah ...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri G.S. Rane, Advocate for Petitioner
...
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
DATE : 20.03.2013
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2.At the time of final arguments, petitioner-
tenant-defendant moved an application for framing
additional issues, as under:-
(A) What is the standard rend of the suit
premises?
(B) Whether the plaintiff has lawfully
terminated the tenancy of the defendant
through a legal notice dated 07.11.2008?
The said application is rejected. Aggrieved
thereby present petition.
2 W.P.1434.13
3.Mr. Rane, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that issue regarding standard rent is relevant and
material. There is dispute regarding standard rent
and issue to that effect ought to have been framed.
It is further contended that defendant has denied the
notice dated 07.11.2008. As such, a fact affirmed by
one party and denied by other, it gives rise to an
issue and the said issue goes to the root of the
matter.
So far as issue of standard rent is concerned,
the proceedings for standard rent are pending. Learned
counsel further submits that proceedings of standard
rent and present proceedings are being decided
simultaneously. In view of that the said issue is not
required to be framed separately.
4. The parties are aware of the case. The parties
have led the evidence, keeping in mind their
respective pleadings. The parties can advance the
arguments with regard to their legal propositions. In
view of that, there is no need to interfere in the
discretion exercised by the trial Court.
3 W.P.1434.13
5. In the light of that, the writ petition is
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
MTK
Murlidhar Vedu Dusane
Sanmukhlal Govardhandas Shah
S.V. GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court