Shri. Hardik S/O. Deepakbhai ... vs Shri. Prabhu S/O. Vithobaji Lende
2016 Latest Caselaw 1718 Bom

    wp2337.16                                                                                                                                                                         1/2

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                   WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2016




                                                                                                                             
                  Hardik s/o Deepakbhai Parkeh
                  aged about 40 yrs., Occp. Business,
                  r/o 643, Block No.2, Badkas Chowk,




                                                                                                                            
                  Ayachit Mandir Road,
                  Nagpur.                          ::                                                                                      PETITIONER

                  ..Versus..




                                                                                                  
                  Prabhu s/o Vithobaji Lende,
                  aged 74 yrs., Occp. Business,                
                  r/o House No.643, Ayachit Mandir Road,
                  Badkas Chowk, Mahal,
                  Nagpur.                              ::                                                                            RESPONDENT
                                                              
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - 
                                                  Shri D. G. Paunikar, Advocate for the petitioner. 
                                             Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari,  Advocate for the respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              


                                                                         CORAM  :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 21 APRIL 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel waives service of notice for the

respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3. On going through the impugned order dated 29/02/2016, I find that the

order cannot be faulted with for any illegality or perversity in exercise of

discretionary power by the learned Additional Judge.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not

wp2337.16 2/2

seeking any extension of time. He further submits that the petitioner is

showing his bona fide by expressing his willingness to deposit today all the

arrears of rent.

5. However, this argument cannot be accepted as much water has flown in

this case after refusal of the request of the petitioner for extension of time.

That refusal came on 16/02/2016 when the learned Additional Judge rejected

the application filed by the petitioner in that behalf vide Exh.30. This order

dated 16/2/2016 was never challenged by the petitioner. Now, by saying that

the petitioner is only seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent would

only mean that the petitioner is also seeking time for depositing the arrears of

rent. This would not be permissible in law. Basically, the petitioner has

accepted order dated 16/02/2016 rejecting the prayer for extension of time

and, therefore, now the petitioner cannot say that he would be permitted to

deposit the arrears of rent. I see neither any illegality nor any perversity in the

impugned order. Therefore, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not be permissible for

this Court to make interference in the impugned order.

The writ petition stands rejected.

Rule is discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

wwl