AJIT DHARIA v. MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI
Discusses constitutional writ jurisdiction, tenant rights, and maintainability of petitions.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:9099-DB
Decision Date: 20-06-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; General Principles of Law
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition under this article seeking a writ of mandamus. The court notes that the civil dispute cannot be decided in its jurisdiction under Article 226.
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: The judgment mentions Section 499 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, stating that the rights and entitlement of a tenant under redevelopment of a tenanted structure are well protected under this section.
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: The judgment refers to Section 17 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, stating that the rights and entitlement of a tenant under redevelopment of a tenanted structure are well protected under this section.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the maintainability of the petition, likening it to a lottery ticket and characterizing it as a form of extortion. It also touches upon the duty of the landlord to enter into an agreement with the petitioner on the same terms as other tenants, and the tenant's remedy before the civil court if this is not done.
🔒 For Members Only