Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J
Mohammed Arbaaz Aziz Farooqui – Appellant
Versus
Hiroo Hiranand Ragoowansi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. license expired; eviction sought under mrc act s.24 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. mou creates additional security deposit right (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. mou forged; only license agreement governs (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. licensee must vacate post-expiry despite renovations (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. summary eviction procedure instills owner confidence (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. ca jurisdiction limited to license agreement (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. mou inconsistent, unauthentic; irrelevant to eviction (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. poa valid; no automatic defense right (Para 34 , 35) |
| 9. writ dismissed; eviction orders upheld (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT:
1) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner assails the order dated 6 June 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) dismissing the Revision Application preferred by him and confirming the Order dated 20 March 2025 passed by the Competent Authority, Rent Control Act Court under Section 24 of the MRC Act in Eviction Application No. 240 of 2024. The Competent Authority ha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
