BHIMRAO GULABRAO TAYADE vs POOJA PANKAJ SHAH AND ORS — WP/6546/2026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM010241922026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/14216/2026

Filing Date

07-05-2026

Registration No

WP/6546/2026

Registration Date

08-05-2026

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

ARREARS OF RENT ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

BHIMRAO GULABRAO TAYADE

Adv. ABHIJIT BAPUSAHEB KADAM

Respondent(s)

POOJA PANKAJ SHAH AND ORS

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KONKAN DIVISION

THE SR. POLICE INSPECTOR GOREGAON MUMBAI

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

08-05-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

Orders

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

The High Court of Bombay rejected the writ petition challenging the petitioner's eviction from licensed premises. The court held that the Competent Authority's jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is limited to the Leave and License Agreement's terms and cannot consider an alleged oral sale agreement. The petitioner was directed to pursue his claims for specific performance or return of the Rs.46,00,000 consideration through his separate suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay rejected the writ petition challenging the petitioner's eviction from licensed premises. The court held that the Competent Authority's jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is limited to the Leave and License Agreement's terms and cannot consider an alleged oral sale agreement. The petitioner was directed to pursue his claims for specific performance or return of the Rs.46,00,000 consideration through his separate suit. 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