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.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010241922026

Filing Number

WP/14216/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

WP/6546/2026

Registration Date

08-May-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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHIMRAO GULABRAO TAYADE

    Adv. ABHIJIT BAPUSAHEB KADAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.POOJA PANKAJ SHAH AND ORS

  2. 2.THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

  3. 3.THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KONKAN DIVISION

  4. 4.THE SR. POLICE INSPECTOR GOREGAON MUMBAI

  5. 5.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    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.

  3. 08-May-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  4. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6546/2026

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case