Disposed

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2024WP/3448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a tenant complaining of non-payment of transit rent in a redevelopment project. The court adjourned the matter to 26 July 2024, directing the developer to seek instructions on arrears and pay admitted arrears, and refused future adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicants in Interim Application (L) No. 21173 of 2024 allowed to be impleaded as petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 15089 of 2024; main writ petition adjourned to 26 July 2024.

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar vs the State of Maharashtra — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

908-OSWP-3448-2024(1).DOC

¶2

Wadhwa

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3448 OF 2024

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 21173 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3448 OF 2024

¶8

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar …Petitioner Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

¶10

Mr Omar Khaiyam Shaikh , with Ansari Shahzad, for the Petitioner. Ms Vaishali Choudhari, Addl GP , with Ms Gaurangi Patil, AGP, for the Respondent-State.

¶11

Mr Akshay Shinde , for the Respondent-MHADA. Mr Saurabh Utangle , for Respondent No. 3.

¶12

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 19th July 2024

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1. At the request of Mr Utangale, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, we post this matter on 26 July 2024.

¶15

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that one group of tenants concerning the same redevelopment had petitioned this

¶16

Digitally signed SANDHYABHAGU by SANDHYABHAGUWADHWADate: WADHWA 2024.07.2310:41:37 +0530

¶17

Page 1 of 3 19th July 2024

¶18

908-OSWP-3448-2024(1).DOC

¶19

Court vide Writ Petition No. 746 of 2023 and 1088 of 2023. Their Petitions were disposed of by order dated 2 November 2023.

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in this Petition, the Petitioner seeks a similar order as was made in the above two Writ Petitions. He submits that the grievances of the present Petitioner can be sorted out by making a similar order.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the developer seeks a week’s time to obtain instructions. The learned counsel must also obtain instructions on whether the transit rents payable have fallen in arrears. If so, he must seek instructions regarding payments. The developer is expected to pay at least the admitted arrears, if any, before the next date.

¶22

5. List the matter on 26 July 2024. We make it clear that we will not entertain any request for adjournment on behalf of the developer, particularly since the Petitioner complains of nonpayment of transit rent.

¶23

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 21173 OF 2024

¶24

6. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicants in this Interim Application may be permitted to join as Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 15089 of 2024. He states that the grievance of these Applicants is common with the Petitioners.

¶25

Page 2 of 3 19th July 2024

¶26

908-OSWP-3448-2024(1).DOC

¶27

7. The learned counsel states that he appears for the Petitioners in the Writ Petition and will appear on behalf of the Applicants in this Interim Application. Accordingly, leave is granted to implead the Applicants in this Interim Application as Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 15089 of 2024. The necessary amendment is to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶28

8. Interim Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

(Kamal Khata, J)

¶30

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶31

Page 3 of 3 19th July 2024

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Suresh Nandoskar v. the State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kannamwar Nagar Adishakti Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra through Department

Baba Homes Builders and Developers vs Hemant Narayan Desai and 10 Others

Rajjab Ali Mohammad Sayeed Dhole. vs the Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation, and Ors.

Kannamwar Nagar Adishakti Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra through Department

Vinod Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Manoj C. Bokadia Proprietor of Neeta Jewellers vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 9 Ors.