Dismissed

Nalubai Prabhakar Chahan and Others v. Bhagwan Gajadhar Sharma (Choube) and Others

Bombay HC25 Sept 2023CRA/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of a tenant's application to reject a plaint filed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court held the application was misconceived and the impugned order rejecting it was legally correct, vacating an interim protection order.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands dismissed. The impugned order granting protection is vacated.

Nalubai Prabhakar Chahan and Others Vs Bhagwan Gajadhar… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

17-CRA-08-2017.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRA NO.8 OF 2017

¶5

NALUBAI PRABHAKAR CHAHAN AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

BHAGWAN GAJADHAR SHARMA (CHOUBE) AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Praveen B. Gamot Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Amol Gandhi holding for

¶8

Mr. M. B. Vaishnav

¶9

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

¶10

DATE : 25.09.2023

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

2.The respondents had filed a suit for recovery of the possession
under Sections 15(2) and 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
1999. The defendants/tenant had filed an application under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to reject the plaint
as a statutory compliance of a notice under Section 15 (2) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act was not done.

¶14

3. considering the facts and relevant provisions of the law, the learned trial court dismissed the application.

¶15

¶16

17-CRA-08-2017.odt

¶17

4.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that unless the
statutory notice demanding the arrears of the rent as provided under
Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is served, the suit is
not tenable; it is a statutory requirement, the suit was barred.

¶18

5. If any compliance has not been done or if there are defects in
the plaint, the tenant has the right to defend the suit. The suit was not
filed only on the grounds of default in paying the regular rent, but it
was also filed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
which covers many grounds for eviction.

¶19

6.The application that the applicants filed was misconceived. The
defendant/tenant had a right to defend the suit on the legal defects.
The court did not find substance in the application. The impugned
order rejecting the application below Exhibit-13 in Regular Civil Suit
No.266 of 2016, dated 2 January 2017, is legally correct. There is no
substance in the petition. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

¶20

7. Needles to state the interim order granting protection stands

¶21

vacated.

¶22

ysk

Nalubai Prabhakar Chahan and Others v. Bhagwan Gajadhar Sharma (Choube) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalubai Prabhakar Chahan and Others v. Bhagwan Gajadhar Sharma (Choube) and Others

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

Bhalchandra Kashinath Jatal. Vs Bhalchandra Rambhau .

Kamalakar Shahadeo Pere. Vs Kundlik Shahadeo Pere.

Laxman Khushaba Mandlik (L.Rs.) Ganpat and Others. Vs Shankar Maruti Mandlik.

Dr. Tukaram Ramkrishana Karde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mukta Mangalsing Solanke Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Babasaheb Janku Hinge Vs the State of Mah.