Suhas Ramchandra Apte vs Vasantrao Shankarrao Bhosle(D) … on 9 August, 2017

                                                                 1

                                                                                             NON-REPORTABLE

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CIVIL APPEAL             NO(S).     2120 OF 2004

                         SUHAS RAMCHANDRA APTE                                             Appellant(s)

                                                                VERSUS

                         VASANTRAO SHANKARRAO BHOSLE(D) THR.
                         LRS.                                                              Respondent(s)

                                                   J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, Section 11(3) of the Bombay Rent Act,

1947, as applicable to the State of Gujarat, has been

followed in the instant case whereas Section 11(3)

that is applicable in Mumbai is different. If that

be so, it is an error apparent on the face of the

Court which the High Court should correct at the

first instance.

2. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with

liberty to the appellant to file an application for

review before the High Court within 30 days from

today. If the appellant is able to satisfy the High

Court that the High Court has followed a provision

which is not applicable to the State of Maharashtra,
Signature Not Verified

needless to say, appropriate orders for recalling the
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2017.08.11
16:43:58 IST
Reason:

Judgment and passing a fresh Judgment in the light of

the applicable provisions will be rendered.
2

3. Being a litigation which started in the year

1977, we request the High Court to dispose of the

review application, if filed, expeditiously and

preferably within three months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

4. We make it clear that in the nature of the order

we have passed above, we have not considered the

matter on merits.

No costs.

…………………..J.

[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

…………………..J.

[ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

AUGUST 09, 2017.

                                         3

ITEM NO.102                    COURT NO.6                      SECTION IX

                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F              I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                    Civil Appeal        No(s).     2120/2004

SUHAS RAMCHANDRA APTE                                          Appellant(s)

                                        VERSUS

VASANTRAO SHANKARRAO BHOSLE(D) THR. LRS.                       Respondent(s)

Date : 09-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Appellant(s) Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv.

Ms. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Braj K. Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Vandana Gogna, Adv.

Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR
Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv.

Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.



(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                                       (SUMAN JAIN)
  COURT MASTER                                             COURT MASTER


(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Article source: Supreme Court

EmailEmail
PrintPrint
WP Socializer Aakash Web