SUHAS B.MARATHE vs SHRI MAHADEO GANESH JOGLEKAR

Judgment text excerpt

204-WP-5389-2000.doc Vaibhav IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5389 OF 2000 Suhas B. Marathe …Petitioner Versus 1(a). Balwant Mahadeo Joglekar & Ors. …Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Yashodhan Divekar a/w Siddhant Varunkar i/b M/s. Divekar & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. M. L. Patil, for the Respondents. Mr. Drupad S. Patil - Amicus Curiae. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 30 JANUARY 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. M. L. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents and Mr. Drupad Patil, learned Amicus Curiae. QUESTION OF LAW: 2. In this Writ Petition an interesting question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 23 of the The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Bombay Rent Act”) is raised. It is the contention of the Petitioner – Landlord that if the tenantable repairs are carried out to the suit premises by the tenant then in one year only one-fourth of the aggregate of yearly rent can be deducted or 1 204-WP-5389-2000.doc recovered and therefore the Suit filed for recovery of the entire amount required for repairs is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Respondent - Tenant that as the tenant was constrained to carry out the repairs, as landlord refused or neglected to carry out the same, which is the statutory responsibility of the landlord, the entire amount incurred by the tenant for repairs be allowed to be recovered. CHALLENGE: 3. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Judgme