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
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
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
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 15-06-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
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.
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