The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing licensees to vacate premises upon realization of a refundable security deposit. The court held that Section 24 of the Rent Act does not preclude such directions when a valid agreement exists.
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.
2023:BHC-AS:36553
10 Wp-12284-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12284 OF 2022
Sunny Maganlal Jaiswal. Versus Usha Ramakant Pandey and Another.
...Petitioner.
...Respondents.
Mr. Abhinesh Yadav for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Pandey for the respondents.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : December 7, 2023.
P. C. :
1 of 2
Patil-SR
10 Wp-12284-2022.doc
him and was not intended to be refunded.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
2 of 2
Patil-SR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisional authority could direct respondents to hand over possession upon realization of a refundable security deposit contrary to the section 24(1) summary procedure of the Maharashtra R
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunny Maganlal Jaiswal
Usha Ramakant Pandey
Another
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court