Pravin S/O Purushottam Mundhada And ... vs The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 5095 Bom

Bombay High Court

Pravin S/O Purushottam Mundhada And ... vs The Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. ... on 14 May, 2026

                                                1                           WP-4185-2026


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

                           WRIT PETITION NO.4185 OF 2026
                        Pravin S/o Purushottam Mundhada and Others
                                      -- VERSUS --
                        The Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Others
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions             Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.

                               Mr. K.S. Agrawal, Advocate a/w. Mr. S.W. Sambre, Advocate
                               for the Petitioners.
                               Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                               Ms. S.V. Kolhe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.4/State.

                               CORAM :          RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                               DATE         :   MAY 14, 2026.

                                                The petitioners, who claim to be the sub-
                               tenants of respondent No.3, have approached this
                               Court, contending that they have been served with a
                               notice of eviction.

                               2.               The learned counsel for the petitioners has
                               argued that, though they were called upon to remain
                               present and they have filed their submissions, the order
                               impugned shows that the material pointed out by the
                               petitioners were not taken into consideration.

                               3.               Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kasat,
                               appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, has vehemently
                               opposed the prayer, contending that the property in
                               question was leased out to respondent No.3, who has

              Piyush Mahajan
                                 2                     WP-4185-2026


                 accepted the order, and therefore, the petitioners, who
                 are sub-tenants, have no right to claim the possession.
                 He then prayed for time to file a detailed reply.

                 4.             Considering the fact that the petitioners
                 are in possession of the property since last many years,
                 prima facie, I am inclined to protect their possession till
                 the returnable date. Hence, the following order:-

                                         ORDER

(i) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22/06/2026;

(ii) Mr. Kasat, learned counsel, waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2;

(iii) Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent No.4;

(iv) In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as regard the possession.

[

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

Piyush Mahajan