MOHAMMED ARBAAZ AZIZ FAROOQUI vs HIROO HIRANAND RAGOOWANSI Advocate - Tejas Mahamuni, ,SANDESH DESHPANDE,Pritipurandare,Rajendra Rathod — WP/9525/2025
Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010358712025
Filing Number
WP/22742/2025
Filing Date
04-07-2025
Registration No
WP/9525/2025
Registration Date
10-07-2025
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
EVICTION ON THE GROUND OF MISUSE ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHAMMED ARBAAZ AZIZ FAROOQUI
Adv. Niranjan Mogre
Respondent(s)
HIROO HIRANAND RAGOOWANSI Advocate - Tejas Mahamuni, ,SANDESH DESHPANDE,Pritipurandare,Rajendra Rathod
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE
FRESH ADMISSION
FOR SETTLEMENT / CONSENT TERMS
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-07-2025 | FRESH ADMISSION |
| 23-03-2026 | FOR SETTLEMENT / CONSENT TERMS |
| 16-10-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 19-08-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 14-08-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/9525/2025 Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui v. Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging eviction orders under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court held that the license period expired on 31 May 2024, and the petitioner must vacate the premises; claims based on an alleged MOU regarding Rs.50 lakhs spent on renovations cannot be considered in summary eviction proceedings, which are limited to examining only the leave-and-license agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/9525/2025 Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui v. Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging eviction orders under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court held that the license period expired on 31 May 2024, and the petitioner must vacate the premises; claims based on an alleged MOU regarding Rs.50 lakhs spent on renovations cannot be considered in summary eviction proceedings, which are limited to examining only the leave-and-license agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts