Bombay High Court
Subahsh Shamrao Mojar vs M/S. Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt. Ltd on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(907 & 908)- RPWST-32256 & 32263-22.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BALAJI
GOVINDRAO REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.32256 OF 2022
PANCHAL
Digitally signed by
IN
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
PANCHAL
Date: 2023.02.13 WRIT PETITION NO.6116 OF 2002
17:32:14 +0530
Sangita Chandrashekhar Mojar ..Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.32263 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.6117 OF 2002
Subhash Shamrao Mojar ..Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
Ms. Vaijayanti R. Kalekar, for the Petitioner in both Review Petitions.
Ms. Priti S. Shah, for the Respondent in both Review Petitions.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C.
1. The petition is by the tenant who is facing eviction
proceedings on behalf of respondent/landlord. The suit for eviction
was dismissed, however, in an appeal recourse was taken out under
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act which prayer was
though rejected by the Appellate Court, this Court vide reasoned
order allowed the same. The order of this Court was questioned in
BGP. 1 of 3
(907 & 908)- RPWST-32256 & 32263-22.doc.
an SLP, however, the SLP came to be withdrawn by the petitioner
with liberty to move for review before this Court. As such, these
review petitions.
2. Contentions of counsel for the petitioner are, even if
appeal at the behest of respondent/landlord is continuation of the
said proceedings, however, in absence of prayer for invoking
provisions of Order XXVI of the CPC, this Court ought not to have
granted relief. As such, it is claimed that there is error apparent on
the face of record. As such, it is claimed that the law relied on by
this Court while granting relief in the matter of Empeegee Portfolio
Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Navinchandra Shah reported in 2009(2)
AIR BOM R 394, is misread and that being so, the order of this
Court warrants reconsideration.
3. It is further claimed that the Court has referred to the
rejection of prayer by the Trial Court, however, in paragraph 6 no
such prayer for inspection under Section 28 was moved before the
Trial Court. As such, there is error apparent on the face of the
record.
4. Counsel for the respondent would support the order
impugned. As far as the observations in paragraph 6 are concerned,
qua "rightly rejected by the Trial Court", same needs to be corrected
and read as "rightly rejected by the Appellate Court". As far as the
invoking of reference to the provisions of Order XXVI of the CPC is
BGP. 2 of 3
(907 & 908)- RPWST-32256 & 32263-22.doc.
concerned, once the statute provides for a remedy and provision of
law which provide for remedy even if not mentioned, from the
reading of the pleadings, it is open for the Court to refer such
provisions even at later stage. The aforesaid principle can be borne
out from catena of judgments of this Court. Apart from above, the
applicability of the case law in the matter of Empeegee Potfolio
Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is in the facts of the present case and that
being so, this Court is of the view that there is no error apparent on
the face of record which warrants review of the order.
5. As such, both the Review Petitions stand rejected.
6. This Court requests the Appellate Court to adjourn the
hearing of the appeal beyond first week of March, 2023.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
