Dismissed

Smt. Shaila Bhalchandra Bhagwat Decd. through Lhr v. Prafulla Dattatraya Phadake

Bombay HC22 Aug 2022WP/2478/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a landlord's application for possession on grounds of rent arrears and to fix standard rent. The court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner failed to specifically aver a dispute on standard rent to justify entertaining the claim under section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed to move for an amendment in the written statement.

Smt. Shaila Bhalchandra Bhagwat Decd. through Lhr Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1/3

¶2

21.WP.2478.2020.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2478 OF 2020

¶5

Shaila Bhalchandra Bhagwat (Since deceased through her legal heir & representative) Pandharinath Bhalchandra Bhagwat

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prafulla Dattatraya Phadake

¶8

...Petitioner ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Vijay N. Bolinjkar for the Petitioner Mr. Akash Warang for the Respondent

¶10

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶11

DATED : 22^nd AUGUST, 2022

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The application Exhibit-199 was taken out by the petitioner/defendant nos. 1 & 2 in the RCS No. 57 of 2009 which is for possession by the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent.

¶14

The said application moved u/s. 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the said Act") came to be rejected vide order impugned dated 19/12/2019. As such, this petition.

¶15

According to the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bolinjkar, the order impugned suffers from illegality as the Court below though has accepted the petitioner/defendant no. 2 as legal heirs of the defendant no. 1 has proceeded to pass the order on consideration

1/3

akn

2/3

21.WP.2478.2020.doc

that the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant no. 2 i.e. the petitioner has no authority in law to continue in possession as tenant. According to him, section 8 empowers the Court to entertain the application Exhibit-199 and as such, the Court below committed error.

¶21

The order impugned is supported by the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶22

I have appreciated the aforesaid submissions.

¶23

With the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the written submissions particularly paragraph nos. 4 & 5. 7. According to him, the said paragraph nos. 4 & 5 in fact satisfy the very requirement under section 8 of the said Act wherein the petitioner is claiming that the standard rent which was earlier Rs. 140/- should be fixed.

¶24

What can be noticed from the very pleadings of the petitioner that the petitioner has failed to specifically averred about the existence of the dispute about standard rent and there needs to be an issue decided. Admittedly issues are framed and the petitioner has not contested the claim of fixation of the standard rent therein.

¶25

In the aforesaid background, it cannot be held that the

2/3

akn

3/3

21.WP.2478.2020.doc

petitioner has right to claim the fixation of standard rent pursuant to the provisions under section 8 of the Act.

¶31

For the aforesaid reasons, it appears that conclusion drawn by the Trial Court in the order impugned is justified. That being so no case for inference is made out. The petition as such fails and stands dismissed.

¶32

However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from moving for an amendment in the written statement, which be decided and considered in accordance with law.

¶33

ANANT Digitally signed byANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIKDate: 2022.08.25 NAIK 10:23:51 +0530

¶34

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶35

3/3

¶36

akn

Smt. Shaila Bhalchandra Bhagwat Decd. through Lhr v. Prafulla Dattatraya Phadake

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shaila Bhalchandra Bhagwat Decd. through Lhr v. Prafulla Dattatraya Phadake

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

Rajendra G. Patil Thru Poa Mrs. Sheela R Patil and Anr. Vs Smt. Vimla Mehta Decd Thru Lhrs

Shri. Kalgonda Dhulgonda Patil and Anr. Vs Shripati Ramchandra Wadinge Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs and Ors.

Smt. Chaturbai Narayan Gujare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Ministry of Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Raghunath Rajvantha Sharma Deceased Thr. Lrs. Asha Ajay Vishwakarma Vs Chhotubhai Lallubhai Bhatada (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Dilip Chhotubhai Bhatada

Smt. Mandakini Krishnakant Kerle Vs Rajendra Purshottam Rasane

Smt. Jayashri Satish Paithankar Thru Poa Shri. Amey Paithankar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru and Ors.