Dismissed

Mohd Imran Mardan Sarbatwala v. the Maharashtra Husing and Area Development Authority and 4 Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2015WP/679/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for alternative accommodation, claiming non-adjacent tenancies entitled him to separate units. The Court rejected the Writ Petition, noting the authorities correctly found insufficient proof of separate tenancies prior to the critical date and refused to interfere with concurrent findings of fact.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition rejected and disposed of.

Mohd Imran Mardan Sarbatwala Vs the Maharashtra Husing and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

966.wpl2495.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2495 OF 2014

¶5

Mohd. Imran Mardan Sarbatwala through C.A.

¶6

Mr. Mohammed Asif Iqbal Springwala. … Petitioner. Versus The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors. ... Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Mahesh Vishwakarma, advocate for petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Rupali Dixit i/b. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. Chirag Balsara i/b. P.M. & Mithi & Co., advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ DATE : MARCH 18, 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 The Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present Petitioner. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the

¶13

Petitioner is having two separate tenancies, one for an area of 5.08 sq.mtrs. and another for an area of 11.10 sq.mtrs. It is the

¶14

Talwalkar 1/2

¶15

2 966.wpl2495.14.sxw

¶16

contention of the Petitioner that since the tenanted premises are not adjacent to each other, the area of the same could not have been clubbed and the Petitioner ought to have been given separate alternate accommodation in respect of each of the said premises.

¶17

2 Thus, we see that for an area admeasuring 16.18 sqmt., the petitioner has been given an area admeasuring 35 sq.mt.

¶18

3 The scope of interference in the findings of fact is very limited. Unless the Court finds that findings arrived by the Authorities are concurrent and are perverse, only then the Court would interfere in the findings so arrived. Both the authorities have concurrently held that the Petitioner has failed to bring any document to prove that there were two separate tenancy prior to 13/6/1996. We see no reason for interfering in the findings so arrived by the Authorities. Hence, the Writ Petition is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(A.S. GADKARI, J)

¶20

( B.R.GAVAI ,J)

¶21

Talwalkar 2/2

Mohd Imran Mardan Sarbatwala v. the Maharashtra Husing and Area Development Authority and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Imran Mardan Sarbatwala v. the Maharashtra Husing and Area Development Authority and 4 Others

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

Smt. Rehana a. @ Naeem Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thro Govt Pl and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Kothari Vs Central Information Commission and 2 Others

Anand Narayan Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Deenanath Lalmani Tiwari and 4 Ors. Vs M/S International Trading and Manufacturing Company and 7 Ors.

Jet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ras Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Prakash Devidas Sankukar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.