Allowed

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd., and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2024CAC/22/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord sought arrears of rent, interim compensation and expeditious hearing of a long-pending revision against concurrent eviction decrees. Arrears were paid till July 2023 and no interim compensation order existed, so only expeditious hearing was considered and granted.

What did the court decide?

Interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause (c) only; revision to be listed under expedited category as per its turn.

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs Mackinnon… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

25 CAC-22-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2021

¶4

IN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2011

¶6

Mackinnon Mackenzie And Co. Ltd.…Applicant
In the matter between:
Bombay Chamber Of Commerce And Industry …Petitioner
Versus
Mackinnon Mackenzie And Co. Ltd., And Anr.…Respondents

¶7

*****

¶8

Mr. Naresh Ratnani i/b. Ashwin Ankhad & Associates, for Applicant/
Respondent N.1.

¶9

Digitally signed HUSENBASHARAHAMANNADAF byHUSENBASHARAHAMANNADAF Date: 2024.02.17 15:25:30 +0530

¶10

Ms. Lancy D’souza a/w. Deepika Agarwal i/b. Dabholkar, for original
Petitioner.

¶11

*****

¶12

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY 2024

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

.This is an application filed by original Plaintiff / landlord
seeking (a) arrears of rent and taxes from February 2005 to February
2019, (b) for direction to pay interim compensation from
03/04/2003 onwards and lastly (c) for expeditious hearing of the
civil revision application.

¶15

2.Learned counsel for the Respondent (original Petitioner in CRA
- tenant) submits that in view of the fact that the tenant has paid
arrears till July 2023, prayer clause (a) is worked out and need not
be considered. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel
for the Applicant.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Husen

¶18

25 CAC-22-2021.doc

¶19

3.Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that so far
as prayer clause (b) is concerned, there is no basis for the amount
stated in the prayer. Indeed, parties are ad adem that there is no
order of interim compensation passed by this Court and therefore
even this prayer need not be considered.

¶20

4.Finally, only prayer clause (c) for expeditious hearing is to be
considered. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the suit
for eviction is filed in 1992 in which decree is passed in October
2003, directing the Defendant / Tenant to vacate the suit premises.
He submits that decree of trial court is confirmed by the Appellate
Court in March 2011. Since last 13 years, present revision is pending
in which interim stay is granted. Inviting this Court’s attention to the
order dated 24/07/2012 passed in the present revision application, it
is submitted that at the time of granting Rule itself, the hearing of the
revision application was expedited with liberty to apply for early
hearing.

¶21

5. Considering the above dates and the fact that the landlord’s
suit was filed way back in 1992, and further considering the fact that
concurrent findings are under challenge in this revision which itself is
pending for last several years, it is only just that the hearing of the
revision is expedited.

¶22

6.In that view of the matter, interim application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (c) only i.e. hearing of the revision is
expedited. Above Revision Application be listed under expedited
category as per its turn.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Husen

¶25

25 CAC-22-2021.doc

¶26

7. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶27

 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

Husen

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shila Mahadev Dalvi and Ors. Vs Prakash Keshav Chitnis (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1A) Smt. Jyoti Prakash Chitnis and Ors.

Shantabai Ramchandra Jadhav and Ors. Vs Pilaji Shankar Jadhav

Shehab Sulatan Bohra Vs M/S. Dadar Motor Works

M/S. Tirthroop Electrical vs M/S. T. T. Blades

Vimal Sakharam Yeole and Anr. Vs Sahadu Khandu Kate

Anil Jagannath Chavan Vs Jagannath Pandharinath Chavan