9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application of respondents barred under O. 23 R. 1 of the C.P.C. 2. Application of respondents barred by provisions of S. 31H of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. 3. Jurisdiction of Co-operative Court to try the dispute. 4. Maintainability of present proceedings before Competent Authority. 5. Applicability of the principle of approbate and reprobate. 6. Error in Co-operative Court's order of withdrawal without granting permission to initiate fresh proceedings. 7. Granting time to vacate the premises. Analysis: 1. The petition challenged an order directing delivery of possession of licensed premises to the respondents. The petitioner argued that the respondents' application was barred under O. 23 R. 1 of the C.P.C. Alternatively, it was contended that the application was barred by S. 31H of the Bombay Rent Act. The factual background revealed that the agreement of leave and licence had ended, leading to a dispute filed in the Co-operative Court. The Co-operative Court's order permitted withdrawal of the dispute without liberty to file fresh proceedings, prompting the respondents to approach the Competent Authority for possession. 2. The judge clarified that S. 31H did not apply to the case as it pertained to proceedings pending before the Amending Act of 1986, whereas the dispute in question was filed post the Act's enforcement. Regarding the application being barred under O. 23 R. 1, the principle of approbate and reprobate was invoked. The petitioner's challenge to the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction precluded them from now asserting the maintainability of the dispute, as per legal precedent. 3. Another reason for rejecting the petitioner's contention was the Co-operative Court's error in not granting permission to initiate fresh proceedings despite the respondents' application for withdrawal with liberty to file anew. The judge emphasized that courts should grant liberty to file fresh proceedings when allowing withdrawal with such liberty is requested. Consequently, the petition was dismissed summarily. 4. The judge granted the petitioner time to vacate the premises until April 30, 1996, considering the petitioner's circumstances. Conditions were set for vacating the premises, including filing a written undertaking and complying with arrears payment. The civil revision application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and the revision was dismissed.
|
