Allowed

Shri. Yashwant Shankar Nazare (Thr. Const. Attorney Shri. Surendra Yashwant Nazare) v. Smt. Dattatraya Mahadeo Pandharkame

Bombay HC4 Dec 2017CAS/695/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a landlord's civil application for an order under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC to compel the tenant applicant to deposit Rs. 10,000 per month as compensation for the stay of an eviction decree in commercial premises.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 monthly in the trial court; failure on two defaults will vacate interim order; arrears from Jan 2015 to be deposited within 8 weeks.

Shri. Yashwant Shankar Nazare (Thr. Const. Attorney Shri… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 13) ca695-16.doc

¶2

SAS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.695 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.419 OF 2015

¶6

Yaswhant Shankar Nazare through C.A. Surendra Yashwant Nazare ..Applicant. IN THE MATTER OF Smt. Dattatraya Mahadeo Pandharkame ..Appellant. V/s. Yaswhant Shankar Nazare ..Respondent.

¶7

Mr.D.B.Sawant for the appellant.

¶8

Mr.Akshay Petkar for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM: NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.

¶10

DATE : DECEMBER 4, 2017

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

The application is moved by the landlord in whose favour there is a decree of eviction. Pursuant to the appeal filed by the appellant-tenant, the respondent-landlord claims that the appellanttenant be put to condition of depositing Rs.25,000/- per month towards compensation by incorporating conditions for the stay enjoyed by the appellant.

¶13

2 13) ca695-16.doc

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant-non applicant states that the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month in the trial Court considering the fact that the tenancy is since 1983 and the premises are put to commercial use.

¶15

Considered the submission. The appeal came to be admitted based on the substantial question of law as to whether the judgment in the earlier suit is to the detriment of the respondentlandlord.

¶16

The premises are admittedly used for commercial purpose on the monthly rent of Rs.150/-.

¶17

Considering the fact that the premises are used for commercial purpose in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of¹ A tma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V/s. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to allow the application and direct the appellant / non applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- on the tenth day of each English calendar month in the trial Court. Two subsequent defaults on the part of the appellant / non applicant in depositing the amount will lead to vacating the interim order passed by

1 2005(1) SC 705

3 13) ca695-16.doc

this Court.

Needless to say that the respondent-landlord will be entitled to withdraw the said amount upon submitting an undertaking to this Court that in case the appeal is allowed, the amount will be returned to the appellant-tenant with interest at the rate of 8% within a period of three months from that date. The amount towards the arrears from January, 2015 to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from today. It is clarified that the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- would be continued to be deposited as hereinabove.

¶22

The civil application stands disposed of accordingly.

Shri. Yashwant Shankar Nazare (Thr. Const. Attorney Shri. Surendra Yashwant Nazare) v. Smt. Dattatraya Mahadeo Pandharkame

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Yashwant Shankar Nazare (Thr. Const. Attorney Shri. Surendra Yashwant Nazare) v. Smt. Dattatraya Mahadeo Pandharkame

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra S/O Humraj Kolpakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zinda Yakubsab Patel Vs Babruwan Mahadeorao Suryawanshi L.Rs.

Akhil Abdul Gaffar Chaudhari Vs Maharashtra State Ware Housing Corporation, Pune and Others

Shri Murlidhar S. Pednekar Vs Shri Sadashiv a. Vaze and Others.

Shri Murlidhar S. Pednekar (Thr Poa Mr. Mahadeo Murlidhar Pednekar) (Since Deceased) Vs Shri Sadashiv a. Vaze and Others.

Shri. Jagannath Sitaram Mane Vs Shri. Vijay Hanumant Jadhav and Anr.