Disposed

Harish P.Thakur v. Girija Narayan

Bombay HC1 Apr 2024IA/2885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application by licensor seeking enhancement of monthly compensation from Rs.4,000 to Rs.48,000 was rejected following the court's earlier view that Atma Ram Properties interim compensation does not apply in writ petitions filed by landlords. A separate application by the licensee for condonation of delay was allowed with costs; the writ petition was adjourned.

What did the court decide?

IA 2885/2020 rejected; licensee given two weeks to deposit Rs.1,68,000 plus Rs.50,000 costs, withdrawable by licensor; WP 4527/2006 adjourned to 23 April 2024.

Harish P.Thakur Vs Girija Narayan — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

19-ia2885-20.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶6

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.04.03 19:19:53 +0530

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2885 OF 2020

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.4527 OF 2006

¶10

Harish P. Thakur ...Applicant

¶11

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶12

Harish P. Thakur ...Petitioner V/s. Girija Narayan ...Respondent

¶13

Mr.Prashant G. Karande with Mr.Sudam S. Patil for the Applicant / Petitioner.

¶14

Mr.Kunjan Makwana i/b M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for the Respondent.

¶15

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2024.

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

Mr.Karande appears for the Applicant and submits that

¶18

this Interim Application is filed by the landlord / licencor for

¶19

enhancement of the monthly compensation of the suit premises

¶20

from Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.48,000/- per month with effect

1/4

19-ia2885-20.doc

from January 2015.

The Writ Petition has been filed by the landlord / licensor, challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai.

¶25

This Court has already taken view in Interim Application No.20278 of 2022 in the case of Mrs.Anita Dominic D’Souza & Anr. vs. Shaikh Abdul Rauf that the interim

¶26

compensation payable as per Atma Ram Properties, reported in

¶27

(2005) 1 SCC 705 will not be applicable to the Writ Petition /

¶28

Civil Revision Application and/ Appeal filed by the landlord.

¶29

Hence this Interim Application is rejected.

¶30

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.15900 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4527 OF 2006

¶31

Girija Narayan ...Applicant

¶32

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶33

Harish P. Thakur ...Petitioner V/s. Girija Narayan ...Respondent

¶34

2/4

¶35

19-ia2885-20.doc

¶36

This Interim Application is filed by the Respondent / Licensee seeking to condone the delay of 1273 days in filing the application, thereby seeking extension of time for deposit of monthly compensation from April 2020 till filing of the Application i.e. 25 September 2023.

¶37

Mr.Makwana submits that as of today, the outstanding amount payable at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month is Rs.1,68,000/-.

¶38

As a matter of indulgence, this Court is granting two weeks time to the original Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- in this Court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. So also since there is a delay of more than four years in paying the amount, as was directed by this Court, by its order dated 30 August 2008, the original Respondent to pay the costs of Rs.50,000/-, to be deposited in this Court along with the sum of Rs.1,68,000/- within the period of two weeks from today.

¶39

As soon as this amount is deposited by the Respondent

¶40

/ licensee in this Court, the Petitioner / licensor is permitted to

¶41

3/4

¶42

19-ia2885-20.doc

¶43

withdraw the said amount without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. Interim Application No.15900 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶44

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4527 OF 2006

¶45

Harish P. Thakur ...Petitioner V/s. Girija Narayan ...Respondent

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed in the year 2006, by the licensor challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai who had reversed the order passed by the Competent Authority. The lessee is paying a moderate amount of Rs.4,000/- per month for using the premises of about 500 sq. ft. situated at Juhu, Vile Parle Scheme, Mumbai.

¶47

Both the counsel agree that this matter can be disposed of on any fixed date.

¶48

Stand over to 23 April 2024 at 2:30 p.m.

¶49

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶50

4/4

Harish P.Thakur v. Girija Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish P.Thakur v. Girija Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Jaidev Shroff Vs Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff

Anil Chandravadan Mistry Vs State of Maha. Thr. Gp and Anr.

Smt. Jasmina Manish Patel Vs Mr. Manish Mavji Patel

Dhruv Sanjiv Deshpande Vs Samruddhi Manohar Patil

The Bombay St. Xaviers College Soc. and Anr. vs M/S Manisha Ceterers Thr. Its Proprietor

M/S Forbes Gokak Ltd. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited