Dismissed

Suleman Aga (Since Decd) through Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Aug 2014WP/2903/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the confirmation by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of an ex-parte order by the Sub Divisional Officer, which had set aside earlier protective declarations under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act due to the landlord's absence.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; dismissal does not preclude petitioners from initiating fresh proceedings against the landlord.

Suleman Aga (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP290314(60)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2903 OF 2014

¶3

Suleman Kadir Aga (since deceased) Khurashatbi Suleman Aga & Ors.

¶4

..Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Aniket Prakash Ranade for the Petitioners Mr. R. M. Patne AGP for the Respondent No.1 Ms Prabha U. Badadare for the Respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 4^th AUGUST, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 24122013 passed by the Learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, (for short the MRT) by which order the Revision Application No.245/B/2011, filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected and resultantly the order dated 1662011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Tenancy Remand Appeal No.13 of 2005 came to be confirmed.

¶12

2 The aforesaid proceedings have arisen on account of the proceedings under Section 70(b) and under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (for short the said Act) having been decided in favour of the Petitioners. The order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 70(b) and under Section 32G of the said Act was challenged by the

1 of 3

mmj

WP290314(60)

Respondent No.2 herein by filing an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO went into various aspects namely that in the said proceedings under Section 70(b) and under Section 32G the landlord was not present and therefore the said proceedings were decided in the absence of the landlord and the order under Section 70(b) and the order under Section 32G were passed exparte and the certificate under Section 32M was therefore based on an order which was passed exparte.

¶17

3 The Petitioners aggrieved by the said order passed by the SDO had filed the Revision Application before the MRT. The MRT allowed the said Revision and remanded the matter back to the SDO for a fresh inquiry. It is on remand that the SDO passed the order dated 1662011 in the said Tenancy Remand Appeal No.13 of 2005 and has set aside the order under Section 70(b) and order under Section 32G and the certificate granted under Section 32M to the Petitioners. The said order of the SDO dated 1662011 was challenged by the Petitioners by filing Tenancy Revision Application No.245/B/2011 which Revision Application as indicated above has been dismissed by the MRT. The MRT has also adverted to the fact that the proceedings under Section 70(b) and under Section 32G were decided exparte in the absence of the landlord. The MRT also adverted to the fact that in the civil proceedings between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 herein the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court by setting aside the decree on the ground that the Respondent No.2 has an interest in the property, of which the

2 of 3

mmj

WP290314(60)

Petitioners claim to be the tenants. The MRT has after making the observations as aforesaid has confirmed the order dated 1662011 passed by the SDO. The order passed by the SDO and the order passed by the MRT are therefore revolving around the fact that the landlord was not before the Tahsildar when the proceedings under Section 70(b) and under Section 32G were decided.

¶22

4 In the light of the facts as aforesaid, in my view, no fault can be found with the order passed by the MRT confirming the order passed by the SDO. No case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction is therefore made out, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

5 However, dismissal of the above Petition would not come in the way of the Petitioners from initiating fresh proceedings against the landlord in question and if such proceedings are filed, needless to state that they would be tried on their own merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶25

3 of 3

¶26

mmj

Suleman Aga (Since Decd) through Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suleman Aga (Since Decd) through Lrs v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Atmaram Vishram Padave and Ors. Vs Shri. Anant Mahadev Sawant and Ors.

Mr. Shankar M. Jadhav and Ors. Vs Housabai Sakharam Mandle (Since Decd) through Rls.

Jaysingpur Nagarpalika Noukar Lokanchi Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd., Vs Bhupal Annappa Mankapure (Decd.)by Lrs.-Murdevi Bhupal Mankapure and Ors.

Shri. Vishal Vijay Jamdade Vs Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Shri. Sandesh Parshuram Kadolkar Vs Managing Director, Warnanagar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Madhukar Kisan Matkar Since Decesed by His Heirs and Legal Representatives a) D.M. Matkar and Ors. Vs Smt. Anusaya Buwasaheb Shinde and Anr.