Khan Shabnam Umar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a revision, the Bombay High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an order allowing eviction. The court held the petitioner's entry was linked to a registered License Agreement that expired, and her withholding possession was unjustified.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was rejected, upholding the eviction order against the petitioner.
What the court decided
Megha
28_wp_12963_2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12963 OF 2024
Khan Shabnam Umar ….Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
....Respondents
Mr. Jagdish S. Singh for the Petitioner.
Ms Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent -State.
Mr. Ram Ugrah Singh with Mr. Ankur Jain for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can continue possession of the suit premises after the expiry of the Leave and License Agreement.
Whether mere doubts regarding the execution of the License Agreement invalidate the petitioner's entry into the premises.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Khan Shabnam Umar
- respondent
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Coram
Sandeep V. Marne
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court