Amit Housing Ltd vs Shailesh Shrichand Ahuja And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5716 Bom

                       (32 & 45)-WP-6769 & 7317-22.doc.


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          Digitally
          signed by

BALAJI
          BALAJI
          GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.6769 OF 2022
PANCHAL   Date:
          2022.06.23
          09:35:30
                                                WITH
          +0530
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.7317 OF 2022

                       Ami Housing Ltd.                                    ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                       Shailesh Shrichand Ahuja and Anr.                   ..Respondents

                       Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Heramb Kadam and Bhawana
                       Umredkar, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.


                                                    CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2022

P.C.

1. The claim is, order impugned is passed contrary to clause (d) of Sub-Section 15 of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the parties who are sought to be permitted to be brought on record as the representatives of the plaintiff are not in direct blood relation. It is claimed that the order is contrary to the scheme of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, for final disposal, returnable on 20th July, 2022.

3. My attention is also invited to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Kailasbhai Tiwari Vs. Jostna BGP. 1 of 2 (32 & 45)-WP-6769 & 7317-22.doc.

Laxmidas Pujara and Anr. reported in 2006(1) Mh.L.J. 791, particularly, paragraph 14, which reads thus :-

"14. The question as to whether a person is a member of the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenants family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control legislation."

4. In view thereof, there shall be stay to the further proceedings.

5. If the petitioner fails to effect service on the respondents by four weeks from today, the ad-interim protection ordered by this Court shall cease to operate without further reference to the Court.

                                   [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                       2 of 2