Allowed

Shri. Subhash Waman Gaware and Ors. v. Subhash Shrikrishna Karandikar and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2024WP/3624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed the jointly filed writ petitions. It held that proceedings for fixation of rent cannot be remanded merely to fill up lacunae. The High Court set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and remanded the matter for a de novo decision on merits after fresh opportunity of oral hearing within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of MRT set aside. Matter remanded to MRT to decide de novo after granting fresh oral hearing within four months.

Shri. Subhash Waman Gaware and Ors. Vs Subhash… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24-wp3624-2018 with wpwp4910-2024-modified.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3624 OF 2018

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶6

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2024.04.30 10:23:29 +0530

¶7

Subhash Waman Gaware,
since deceased through LRs & Ors.… Petitioners
V/s.

¶8

Subhash Shrikrishna Karandikar & Ors.… Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.4910 OF 2024

¶11

Shrikrishna Sadashiv Karandikar,
(deceased) through LRs Subhash
Shrihrishna Karandikar & Anr.… Petitioners
V/s.

¶12

Subhash Waman Gaware,
since deceased through LRs & Ors.… Respondents

¶13

Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude with Mr. Sharad R. Dhore
& Mr. Sumit Sonane for the petitioner in
WP/3624/2018 & for respondent No.1 in
WP/4910/2024.

¶14

Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for the petitioner in
WP/4910/2024 & for respondent No.1 in
WP/3624/2018.

¶15

Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent/State in both
the matters.

¶16

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶17

DATED:APRIL 2, 2024

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

1.The challenge in both these writ petitions is to the order
passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT” for short)

¶20

¶21

24-wp3624-2018 with wpwp4910-2024-modified.doc

¶22

remanding revision application back to the ALT, Baramati to decide
the matter afresh by granting both sides opportunity of hearing.

¶23

2.Writ Petition No.3624 of 2018 challenges that part of the
order by which the MRT has remanded the proceedings back. The
petitioner in this writ petition is not challenging the findings
recorded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner in Writ Petition
No.4910 of 2024 is challenging the findings recorded by the MRT
in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3624 of 2018.

¶24

3.Both the writ petitions arise out of original proceedings filed
under Section 29 by the landlord on two grounds: one, default in
payment of rent; and second, damage to the property. After two
rounds of litigation, the present writ petitions arise out of third
round of litigation.

¶25

4.On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the MRT
has discussed service of notice of termination of the tenancy. On
perusal of the reasons assigned by the MRT, it appears that
necessary material and evidence to adjudicate upon right of the
landlord under Section 29(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is already in existence. Moreover, it is
well settled principle of law that proceedings cannot be remanded
to fill up lacuna. Therefore, it was duty of the MRT to consider the
revision application based on material available on record, draw its
inference based on material and record necessary findings for
passing operative part of the order.

¶26

5.The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.
Proceedings are remanded back to the MRT to decide the same

¶27

¶28

24-wp3624-2018 with wpwp4910-2024-modified.doc

¶29

afresh.

¶30

6.The MRT shall grant opportunity of oral hearing to both
sides and shall pass appropriate order on merits in accordance
with law within a period of four months from the date of
appearance of the parties.

¶31

7.Parties shall appear before the MRT on 8 April 2024 at 10.30
a.m.

¶32

8.Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶33

9.In view of disposal of the writ petitions, all pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

¶34

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶35

Note:This order is modified as per order dated 29 April 2024 to correct
cause-title & insert paragraph 9.

¶36

Shri. Subhash Waman Gaware and Ors. v. Subhash Shrikrishna Karandikar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Subhash Waman Gaware and Ors. v. Subhash Shrikrishna Karandikar and Anr.

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

Balasaheb Pandharinath Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Samir Tufel Taheer and Anr. Vs Shripati Ganpat Padwal Throu. Poa Prashant Prakash Jori and Ors.

Gramdevi Devasthan and Ors. Vs Gangotri Shopping Center Premises Co. Op Soc Ltd. and Ors.

Alj Residency Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dilip Pukhraj Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhikaji Manaji Ghangav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector Nashik and Ors.