Dismissed

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar v. Gaffar S/O Ismail Jamadar and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023WP/14641/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing impleadment of original owners/landlords in revision applications. The court held no interference was warranted as the revisions are to be heard together but ordered expeditious disposal due to the petitioner being 90 years old.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to dispose of the revisions expeditiously, preferably on or before 31st March 2024.

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar Vs Gaffar S/O Ismail… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:36737

¶2

9-wp-14641-2023.doc
Sonali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.14641 OF 2023

¶5

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar...Petitioner
 Versus
Gaffar s/o. Ismail Jamadar & Ors....Respondents

¶6

Mr. S. S. Kazi, for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 7^th DECEMBER 2023

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

¶10

2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated

¶11

24th August 2023 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra

¶12

Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Pune (hereinafter referred to as
“the MRT”). By the said order, the Applicants who have filed Revision
No.SH/XII/2/2021 were directed to implead original owners as
parties. The said original owners have also filed Revision bearing
No.SH/XII/1/2019.

¶13

3. It is the contention of Mr. Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the application has been filed to prolong the hearing. He submits that the Petitioner-tenant is 90 years old. He

¶14

1/2

¶15

9-wp-14641-2023.doc
Sonali

¶16

submits that all the authorities have passed the orders in favour of
the Petitioner and the said orders are challenged before the MRT. In
fact, the Applicant in said Revision No.SH/XII/2/2021 has no locus to
file Revision. However, by the impugned order, what has been done is
the said Applicant has been directed to add owners/landlords as
party Respondents.

¶17

4. It is an admitted position that both the Revisions i.e. Revision filed by the original owners and the present Respondents are directed to be heard together. Therefore, no interference in the impugned order is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

5. However, as the Petitioner is 90 years old, the learned MRT is requested to dispose of both the said Revisions expeditiously and preferably on or before 31^st March 2024 .

¶19

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶20

 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶21

2/2

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar v. Gaffar S/O Ismail Jamadar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar v. Gaffar S/O Ismail Jamadar and Ors.

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

Mrs. Kamini Kailas Dhule Vs Additional District Collector and Ors.

Ramniklal Nemchand Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Revenue Animal Husbandray Dairy and Ors.

Vilas Dhaku Parab vs Grievances Redressal Committee

Shri. Abdul Sattar Ismail Jamadar Vs Gaffar S/O Ismail Jamadar and Ors.

Ramugude Sahaniwas No. 2 Sahkari Gruharachan Dekhbhal Sanstha Maryadit vs Divisional Co-Op Election Officer and Assistant Registrar Co-Op Soc. and Ors.

Dinesh Vasant Tawate vs Sharayu Shankar Khochare