In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking declaration of tenancy rights, the High Court declined to entertain the petition due to disputed questions of fact, advising the petitioner to approach the competent authority. Petitions disposed with remedies kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-11559-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11559 OF 2017
New Badamwadi Rahiwasi Sevak Sangh .. Petitioner. v/s. Life Insurance Corporation & Others .. Respondents.
Mr. Shivprasad R. Page, for the Petitioner. Mr. Harihar Bhave with Ms. Rupa Bhave and Ms. Divya Menon i/b. Bhave & Co., for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondent No.5. Mr. P. K. Sonawane, for the Respondent No.6-UOI
CORAM: A.S.OKA & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2019.
P.C:-
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are virtually seeking a declaration that they are the tenants of the premises allegedly held by them in their capacity as heirs and legal representatives of the original tenants. There is a consequential direction sought to transfer the tenancy rights in their names and to issue rent receipts in their names.
3 This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1 of 2
S.R.JOSHI
involves the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the more appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to seek a declaration from the competent authority.
4 Another grievance made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is based on certain statements made in the affidavit in reply of 1st to 4 Respondents that the 1st Respondent is not following the binding decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Suhas Phophale v/s. Oriental Insurance Company. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st to 4th Respondents states that the 1st Respondent has stated in the affidavit in reply that the issue has been referred to the larger bench.
5 So long as the decision in the case of Dr. Suhas Phophale (supra) continues to hold the field, the 1st Respondent is bound by the same.
6 Subject to what is observed above, we decline to entertain this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petition is disposed of . Remedies of the Petitioner are kept open. The rights and contentions of the parties are also kept open.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)
2 of 2
S.R.JOSHI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking declaration of tenancy rights involving disputed questions of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Suhas Phophale v/s. Oriental Insurance CompanyReferred¶14
Dr. Suhas Phophale v/s. Oriental Insurance Company
1 provisions across 1 enactments
New Badamwadi Rahiwasi Sevak Sangh
Life Insurance Corporation
A.S. Oka
M.S. Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
