SAYYED ASGAR HUSSAINI AND ANR. vs ARSHAD RAFIQUE CHAROLIA AND ANR. — IA/3466/2026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 08th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010229542026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

IA/13391/2026

Filing Date

04-05-2026

Registration No

IA/3466/2026

Registration Date

04-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Bench Type

Single

Category

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONS ( 67 )

Sub-Category

Against Order of Presidency / Provincial Small Causes Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

Petitioner(s)

SAYYED ASGAR HUSSAINI AND ANR.

Adv. Vasim A Shaikh

SHABANA SAYED HUSSAINI

Respondent(s)

ARSHAD RAFIQUE CHAROLIA AND ANR.

RASHID RAFIQUE CHAROLI

Orders

08-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the tenants' (Applicants') revision application challenging an eviction decree for default in rent payment under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court upheld concurrent findings that the defendants failed to deposit the complete arrears of rent (Rs.38,025), 15% interest (Rs.11,407), and costs within 90 days as required by Section 15(3)—a Rs.5,702 deficit existed. The court rejected arguments that this minuscule shortfall should be ignored, noting it equaled over six months of rent and the tenants also defaulted on deposits for five years during appeal proceedings. Eviction decree upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the tenants' (Applicants') revision application challenging an eviction decree for default in rent payment under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court upheld concurrent findings that the defendants failed to deposit the complete arrears of rent (Rs.38,025), 15% interest (Rs.11,407), and costs within 90 days as required by Section 15(3)—a Rs.5,702 deficit existed. The court rejected arguments that this minuscule shortfall should be ignored, noting it equaled over six months of rent and the tenants also defaulted on deposits for five years during appeal proceedings. Eviction decree upheld. 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