MR.SATISH YASHWANT MANE THR HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SADANAND B HIGDE vs SURU CONSULTATANTS PVT. LTD. Advocate - R V and Co — CRA/278/2025

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 115. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th October 2025.

CNR: HCBM010240592025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CRA/15316/2025

Filing Date

25-04-2025

Registration No

CRA/278/2025

Registration Date

06-05-2025

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR

Bench Type

Single

Category

RENT ACT ( 34 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07th October 2025

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 115

Petitioner(s)

MR.SATISH YASHWANT MANE THR HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SADANAND B HIGDE

Adv. R A Dubey

Respondent(s)

SURU CONSULTATANTS PVT. LTD. Advocate - R V and Co

MRS. RAJNIGANDHA @ RITA SINGH

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR

12-06-2025

FRESH ADMISSION

07-10-2025

HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)

06-10-2025

HIGH ON BOARD -

18-11-2025

FOR ADMISSION

23-09-2025

FOR ADMISSION

Orders

08-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court allowed Satish Yashwant Mane's interim application, permitting him to install an entrance door at the disputed premises (Rooms 102/103) at his own cost after the door was allegedly removed. The court also found that Respondent No.2 (Mrs. Rajnigandha Singh) deliberately blocked her room's entrance and ordered her to open an alternative separate entrance to Room No.104 from the passage, while prohibiting her from using the applicant's premises for access. Compliance was scheduled for 15 June 2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed Satish Yashwant Mane's interim application, permitting him to install an entrance door at the disputed premises (Rooms 102/103) at his own cost after the door was allegedly removed. The court also found that Respondent No.2 (Mrs. Rajnigandha Singh) deliberately blocked her room's entrance and ordered her to open an alternative separate entrance to Room No.104 from the passage, while prohibiting her from using the applicant's premises for access. Compliance was scheduled for 15 June 2026. 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