Disposed¶13

Salim S/O Sadruddin Charniya v. Harish S/O Sitaram Raghatate

Bombay HC26 Feb 2025WP/3038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant writ petition WP 3038/2024 (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench; Salim s/o Sadruddin Charniya v. Harish s/o Sitaram Raghatate; decided 14/10/2025 by Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J) against rejection of temporary injunction Exh-5 in RCS 176/2023 (Chandrapur) and its affirmance in MCA 75/2023; disposed of without merits in view of pending eviction suit RCS 286/2023 under S.16 Maharashtra Rent Control Act; petitioner left to seek relief in that suit uninfluenced by lower-court orders.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may seek appropriate relief in Regular Civil Suit No.286/2023, which the Court may consider without being influenced by the Trial Court and Appellate Court orders. ¶13

Salim S/O Sadruddin Charniya vs Harish S/O Sitaram Raghatate — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who occupies the premises as tenant, was entitled to protection by way of temporary injunction (Exhibit-5) against the Municipal Council notices treating the structure as dilapidated, i.e., whether the courts below ought to have protected his interest as tenant. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The Court declined to go into the merits of the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court (rejecting the petitioner's temporary-injunction application).

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the landlord has already initiated eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the writ petition was disposed of on that basis.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioner can seek appropriate relief in Regular Civil Suit No.286/2023, and that Court may consider the same without being influenced by the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Thombre, J. — Writ Petition No.3038 of 2024, decided 14/10/2025. The petitioner-tenant challenged the order dated 13.10.2023 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur rejecting his temporary-injunction application (Exhibit-5) in Regular Civil Suit No.176/2023 (suit for perpetual injunction filed after Municipal Council notices declared the tenanted structure dilapidated), and the judgment and order dated 25.4.2024 of the District Judge-1, Chandrapur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.75/2023 upholding that rejection. Without going into the merits of either order, the Court noted that the landlord had meanwhile initiated eviction proceedings under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and that Regular Civil Suit No.286/2023 for eviction was pending. The petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner could seek appropriate relief in that pending suit, which the Court may consider without being influenced by the Trial Court and Appellate Court orders.

¶1

wp3038.24.odt 1/2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶3

Writ Petition No.3038 of 2024 Salim s/o Sadruddin Charniya Vs. Harish s/o Sitaram Raghatate

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶5

and Registrar's Orders.

¶6

Mr. Madhur Deo, Advocate for petitioner. Mr D..L.Dharmadhikari,for respondent/State.

¶7

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 14/10/2025.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 25.4.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Chandrapur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.75/2023 and the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Suit No.176/2023 whereby an application Exhibit 5 came to be rejected.

¶10

He submits that the notices were issued by the Municipal Council on the ground that the structure being occupied by the petitioner as tenant is in dilapidated condition and therefore, he approached the Court and filed a suit for perpetual injunction wherein an application for temporary injunction below Exhibit-5 was rejected, which was upheld by the Appellate Court also in Misc. Civil Appeal. He further submitted that both the Courts below ought to have protected the interest of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner has occupied the premises as tenant.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that subsequently during the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner-the landlord initiated the proceedings under

¶12

Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and Regular Civil Suit No.286/023 for eviction is pending.

¶13

Without going into merits of the order passed by both Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, once it is brought to my notice that the landlord has already initiated proceedings for eviction under the Rent control Act, the petitioner can seek appropriate relief in Regular Civil Suit No.286/2023 and the Court may consider the same without being influenced by the order passed by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 6. The petition stands disposed of.

¶14

(Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J)

¶15

mukund ambulkar

¶16

Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2025 20:46:28

Salim S/O Sadruddin Charniya v. Harish S/O Sitaram Raghatate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim S/O Sadruddin Charniya v. Harish S/O Sitaram Raghatate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dagdu Pandhari Mali through G P a Ramchandra Dagru Mali and Another vs Sonabai Balmukund Tapade and Others

Dagdu Pandhari Mali through G P a Ramchandra Dagru Mali and Another vs Sonabai Balmukund Tapade and Others

Municipal Council, Chandur Bazar, Thr. Chief Officer, Chandur Bazar, Amravati vs Director, Municipal Administration Directorate, Navi Mumbai and Others

Saroj Dilip Gandhi vs Nilesh Subhash Chopda and Others

Shrikrishna Pandurang Thosar vs Smt. Savita Gajanan Adchule and Another

Rajendra Bhanudas Jadhav and Others vs M/S Ismt Ltd. Formerly Known as the Indian Seamless Metal Tube Ltd. and Another