Dismissed

Shantabai Tarachand Pardesi (Deceased through Lrs) Laxman Tarachand Pardeshi and Ors. v. Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Ali

Bombay HC9 Jun 2014LPA/122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal against a single Judge's order dismissing a tenant's earlier suit filed based on alleged unauthorized construction. The High Court upheld the lower court's view and dismissed the appeal, while granting a six-month status-quo interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Status-quo maintained for six months upon filing of undertaking by appellants with usual terms and registry.

Shantabai Tarachand Pardesi (Deceased through Lrs) Laxman… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

122.13-lpa.sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4831 OF 2011

¶5

Smt.Shantabai Tarachand Pardeshi (since deceased through her legal heirs) Shri Laxman Tarachand Pardeshi and others. ... Appellants. V/s.

¶6

Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Ali (since deceased through her legal heirs) Bibi Zahra Hameshi and others.

¶7

... Respondents.

¶8

R.M.Haridas i/b. Sumit Khaire for the appellants.

¶9

S.M.Railkar for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 9^th June 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent- landlord had filed suit against the appellant- tenant earlier in the year 1983 on the ground of unauthorised construction. The said suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶14

2/2 122.13-lpa.sxw

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that second suit was filed after 18 years of the filing of earlier suit based on the fresh cause of action.

¶16

The learned single Judge has considered the issues raised by the appellant. It was observed that there was admission in the crossexamination of the original defendant that the front portion of the suit premises had undergone changes and new front wall was installed. The tenant admitted that neither the permission from the Pune Municipal Corporation nor the consent from the landlord was obtained.

¶17

We have perused the record placed before us including the impugned order passed by learned single Judge. All the three courts have held concurrently against the appellants. We are not convinced with the grounds raised by the appellants for entertaining this LPA. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the learned single Judge. LPA is, therefore, dismissed.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for continuation of interim relief. The parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of suit premises for a period of six seeks on the appellants filing undertaking with usual terms with the registry of this Court within one week from today.

¶19

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Shantabai Tarachand Pardesi (Deceased through Lrs) Laxman Tarachand Pardeshi and Ors. v. Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantabai Tarachand Pardesi (Deceased through Lrs) Laxman Tarachand Pardeshi and Ors. v. Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Ali

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

Mr. Dilawar Rahiman Pathan Vs the Chief Officer, Phaltan Nagar Parished and Ors.

Shri. Dhanraj Parappa Munjal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shantabai Tarachand Pardesi (Deceased through Lrs) Laxman Tarachand Pardeshi and Ors. Vs Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Ali