Dismissed

Mradulla P Sheth and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2021WP/538/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 538 of 2021, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn after the petitioner acknowledged the pendency of appeals against eviction orders. The court kept all merit contentions open for the Appellate Authority, subject to the petitioner depositing deficient court fees and producing proof before the appellate body.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; all merit contentions kept open for decision by Appellate Authority.

Mradulla P Sheth and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

12.WP538_2021.docx

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 538 OF 2021

¶5

Mradulla P. Sheth & Ors.… Petitioners

¶6

vs.
Union of India & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.M.Saraogi for the petitioners.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondent-UOI.
Ms. Vandana Mahadik for the MCGM.

¶8

CORAM :-DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶9

DATE :-JULY 3, 2021

¶10

PC :

¶11

1. The Court fees put in by the petitioners are in deficit. Mr. Saraogi,

¶12

learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the deficit court fees
shall be put by the petitioners by Monday next.

¶13

2. The petitioners have been declared unauthorized occupants of

¶14

public premises in proceedings initiated against each of them under the
relevant provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 and the orders passed by the Estate Officer in this
behalf have been carried in appeals under section 9 of the Act.
Admittedly, the appeals are pending.

¶15

3. Confronted with the situation that unless the appeals succeed and

¶16

the orders of the Estate Officer under challenge are set aside, the

¶17

1/2

¶18

12.WP538_2021.docx

¶19

petitioners may not have any right to relief as claimed in this writ
petition, Mr. Saraogi, learned advocate for the petitioners has prayed for
withdrawal of the writ petition. He, however, submits that all points on
merits may be kept open for decision by the Appellate Authority under
the Act.

¶20

4. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

¶21

5.All contentions on merits are kept open to be urged by the
petitioners before the Appellate Authority for a decision by it.

¶22

6.We, however, observe that hearing of the appeals shall not
proceed unless the petitioners put in the deficit court fees by Monday
next and produce evidence to that effect before the Appellate Authority.
If the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the deficit court fees have
been put in by the petitioners, the appeals preferred by the petitioners
may be considered and disposed of on merits and in accordance with
law, as early as possible.

¶23

7.Needless to observe, the petitioners shall be at liberty to initiate
appropriate proceedings for the reliefs as prayed for in the petition only
if they unconditionally succeed in the appeals before the Appellate
Authority.

¶24

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

2/2

Mradulla P Sheth and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mradulla P Sheth and 2 Ors. v. Union of India 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. Nilesh Manohar Baviskar Vs High Court on Its Own Motion (in the Matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi ) and Ors.

Kiran Vishnu Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sandeep Chatterjee Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Pradip Kamalakar Yadav and Anr. Vs the Commissioner Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Corporation and Ors.

Avior Merlin Ventures LLP Llpin and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Public Works Dept and Anr.

Avior Merlin Ventures LLP Llpin and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.