Disposed

Deepak Dinanath Lotlikar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018WP/3602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a communication cancelling tenancy, the Bombay High Court directed the Tahsildar of Mumbai Metrorail Corporation to hear parties on disputed tenancy facts and decide whether to recall the notice without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to hear parties on disputed tenancy issues and decide whether to recall the communication.

Deepak Dinanath Lotlikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wpl 2694.16.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2694 OF 2018

¶6

Deepak Dinanath Lotlikar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Y.V.Divekar a/w Ms.Sayali Gharpure I/b Divekar & Co., for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP for State.

¶9

Mr.Mangesh D. Chavan I/b Ms.Prashansa Jain, for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, CHIEF JUSTICE & M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶11

DATE : 10th DECEMBER, 2018

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication

¶14

dated 07/05/2018 issued by Tahsildar, Mumbai Metrorail Corporation Limited (for short 'MMCL'). The Petitioner claims

¶15

to be tenant and in occupation of room No. 19 which is subject

¶16

matter of dispute. According to him, rent receipt is in his name. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent

¶17

1/3

¶18

wpl 2694.16.doc

¶19

No.4- mother of the Petitioner is falsely claiming tenancy in respect of the said premises and based on this false representation, Respondent No.3 – MMCL has cancelled the earlier agreement which was in Petitioner's favour and entered into another agreement with the Respondent No.4. Learned Counsel submits that the earlier agreement dated 04/04/2018 in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled without hearing the Petitioner and in breach of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner thus prayed for declaration that the earlier agreement dated 04/04/2018 is subsisting. He prays for quashing and setting aside agreement dated 22/05/2018 executed between Respondent No.3 & Respondent No.4.

¶20

This Petition thus raises following issues.

¶21

a) Whether the Petitioner was tenant of the premises ;

¶22

b) Whether he was residing in the premises ;

¶23

c) Whether it is the mother of the Petitioner who is residing in the premises ;

¶24

2/3

¶25

wpl 2694.16.doc

¶26

d) Whether agreement entered into by the Petitioner with the MMCL or agreement entered into by Respondent No.4 with the MMLC is valid and to be relied upon.

¶27

Considering issues involved, we direct the Tahsildar,

¶28

MMCL to hear the parties on the subject issues and then decide whether to recall communication made on 07/05/2018 or maintain the same. The Tahsildar shall pass a brief reasoned order.

¶29

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion of merits of the matter.

¶30

Writ Petition is disposed of with aforestated

¶31

direction.

¶32

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶33

3/3

Deepak Dinanath Lotlikar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Dinanath Lotlikar v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

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

Ackruti City Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) and Ors.

Sajanlal Vasudeo Jaiswal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Kanubhai Sajjanwala Alias Shailesh Chabildas Sajjanwala and Ors. Vs Dilip Ramchandra Boravke through Constituted Attorney Shri Dilip Tidake and Ors.

Akhil Maratha Federation through Authorised Signatory Vs Dr. Jishril Laxmanrao Patil

Vinod Jain Vs Rohit Manohar Joshi

Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Rohit Manohar Joshi