AMIT KANTILAL LUNKAD AND ANR vs AZIZ VAZIR KHAN AND ORS — WP/4683/2026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section na. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 29th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010145452026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/8411/2026

Filing Date

24-03-2026

Registration No

WP/4683/2026

Registration Date

09-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Bench Type

Single

Category

RENT ACT ( 34 )

Sub-Category

INTERIM ORDER/AD-INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN RENT ACT MATTERS ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

29th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section na

Petitioner(s)

AMIT KANTILAL LUNKAD AND ANR

Adv. SIDDHARTH SUTARIA

AMOL KANTILAL LUNKAD

Respondent(s)

AZIZ VAZIR KHAN AND ORS

NAZIR VAZIR KHAN

USMAN VAZIR KHAN

RIYAZ VAZIR KHAN

AYYUB VAZIR KHAN

DAWOOD VAZIR KHAN

YUSUF VAZIR KHAN

SULEMAN VAZIR KHAN

TAYYAB VAZIR KHAN

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

15-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

15-06-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

29-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by builder-defendants Amit Kantilal Lunkad and others who sought to condone a 280-day delay in filing appeals against eviction decrees. The court found their justifications—including mental trauma from false criminal complaints, family emergencies, and financial constraints—vague and unsubstantiated, particularly given their status as renowned builders capable of engaging advocates. Critically, the court noted the defendants' prior negligence during trial (failing to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence) and their admitted rent default, finding the delay appeared intentional and that allowing the appeal would serve no purpose on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by builder-defendants Amit Kantilal Lunkad and others who sought to condone a 280-day delay in filing appeals against eviction decrees. The court found their justifications—including mental trauma from false criminal complaints, family emergencies, and financial constraints—vague and unsubstantiated, particularly given their status as renowned builders capable of engaging advocates. Critically, the court noted the defendants' prior negligence during trial (failing to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence) and their admitted rent default, finding the delay appeared intentional and that allowing the appeal would serve no purpose on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case