FATIMA AKHTAR HUSSAIN SHAIKH AND ANR vs SHAIKH AZAM MOHAMMAD YUSUF AND ORS Advocate - KHWAJA SHAIKH, ,KHWAJA SHAIKH — WP/119/2026

Case under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010663872025

Filing Number

WP/40717/2025

Filing Date

22-Dec-2025

Registration No

WP/119/2026

Registration Date

05-Jan-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

INTERIM ORDER/AD-INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN RENT ACT MATTERS ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.FATIMA AKHTAR HUSSAIN SHAIKH AND ANR

    Adv. Sumit Kothari

  2. 2.SHAVEZ AKHTER HUSSAIN SHAIKH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAIKH AZAM MOHAMMAD YUSUF AND ORS Advocate - KHWAJA SHAIKH, ,KHWAJA SHAIKH

  2. 2.SHAIKH ASLAM MOHAMMED YUSUF

  3. 3.SHAIKH AMIR MOHAMMED YUSUF

    Adv. KHWAJA SHAIKH

  4. 4.SHABANA NADEEM SHAIKH

  5. 5.SAMEENA JAVED MOMI

  6. 6.AMREEN AZIM SHAIKH

  7. 7.SALEEM ISLAMUDDIN SHAIKH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/119/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected the petitioners' writ petition challenging the District Judge's order denying amendment of the written statement during appeal. The court found the amendment application was a gross abuse of process, as the defendants failed to provide any explanation for why averments about additional available premises weren't included in the original written statement, despite having raised the issue during trial. The court upheld the rejection, noting the defendants already pleaded availability of alternate premises but failed to substantiate it with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  5. 23-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne

  8. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  10. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  11. 23-Feb-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  12. 09-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  13. 09-Feb-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  15. 12-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 22-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/119/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/119/2026 The Bombay High Court rejected the petitioners' writ petition challenging the District Judge's order denying amendment of the written statement during appeal. The court found the amendment application was a gross abuse of process, as the defendants failed to provide any explanation for why averments about additional available premises weren't included in the original written statement, despite having raised the issue during trial. The court upheld the rejection, noting the defendants already pleaded availability of alternate premises but failed to substantiate it with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case