Son of Rameshchandra Chunilal Patel and Legal PoA Rupeshkumar Rameshchandra Patel vs Mahesh Printry Advocate - N.A.DUBE — 153/2020
Case under Gujarat (bombay) Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Section 13. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
SMCST - SMALL CAUSE SUIT
CNR: GJAH030017842020
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
153/2020
Filing Date
21-08-2020
Registration No
153/2020
Registration Date
21-08-2020
Court
SMALL CAUSE COURT, AHMEDABAD
Judge
5-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Son of Rameshchandra Chunilal Patel and Legal PoA Rupeshkumar Rameshchandra Patel
Adv. A.M.JANI
Respondent(s)
Mahesh Printry Advocate - N.A.DUBE
Mahesh Printry through its Partner / Administrator Shashikant Nagindas Bhavsar
Adv. N.A.DUBE
Hearing History
Judge: 5-JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 11-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 13-02-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 07-01-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
| 06-12-2025 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction in this landlord-tenant eviction suit (HRP Suit No. 153/2020). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants had paid arrear rent of nine months and the plaintiff did not comply with statutory notice requirements under the Rent Act. The court held that the plaintiff's claim of bonafide requirement needed evidence at trial and that mere apprehension was insufficient grounds for injunction. Accordingly, the application was disallowed and rejected with costs following the suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction in this landlord-tenant eviction suit (HRP Suit No. 153/2020). The judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the defendants had paid arrear rent of nine months and the plaintiff did not comply with statutory notice requirements under the Rent Act. The court held that the plaintiff's claim of bonafide requirement needed evidence at trial and that mere apprehension was insufficient grounds for injunction. Accordingly, the application was disallowed and rejected with costs following the 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