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.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010229542026

Filing Number

IA/13391/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

IA/3466/2026

Registration Date

04-May-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

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAYYED ASGAR HUSSAINI AND ANR.

    Adv. Vasim A Shaikh

  2. 2.SHABANA SAYED HUSSAINI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARSHAD RAFIQUE CHAROLIA AND ANR.

  2. 2.RASHID RAFIQUE CHAROLI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    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.

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  4. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3466/2026

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case