ABDUL HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ vs GULFAM PEER MOHAMMAD SINCE DECD THROU. HIS L.H. AND ANR 1. — WP/6169/2026
Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010090732026
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
Filing Number
WP/5164/2026
Filing Date
21-02-2026
Registration No
WP/6169/2026
Registration Date
02-05-2026
Bench Type
Single
Category
RENT ACT ( 34 )
Sub-Category
EVICTION - PERSONAL NECESSITY GENERAL ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ABDUL HAFIZ ABDUL AZIZ
Adv. Suresh M kamble
Respondent(s)
GULFAM PEER MOHAMMAD SINCE DECD THROU. HIS L.H. AND ANR 1.
EJAJ GULFAM PEER MOHAMMAD1.
FAYYAJ GULFAM PEER MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMED AMIN FAKIR MOHAMMA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LEGAL HEIR)(Legal Heir)2.
MOHAMMAD ARIF MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
MOHAMMAD YASIN MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
MOBHIN AHMED MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
AYESHA MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
HUMERA MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
FATIMA MOHAMMAD AMIN2.
ASMA MOHAMMAD AMIN
Hearing History
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 04-05-2026 | FOR ORDERS (OBJECTION NOT REMOVED) |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/5164/2026 The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) issued an order on 17 April 2026 regarding office objections in this writ petition. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections after initial notification on 26 March 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects. If office objections remain unresolved after this period, the petition's registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/5164/2026 The Bombay High Court's Registrar (Judicial-I) issued an order on 17 April 2026 regarding office objections in this writ petition. The petitioner and advocate failed to remove office objections after initial notification on 26 March 2026. Rather than immediately refusing registration under Rule 3(iii) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960, the Registrar granted a final two-week extension to cure the defects. If office objections remain unresolved after this period, the petition's registration will be refused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts