← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3455/2025disposed off

Nareshkumar Ramprakash Chowdhary v. The Additional Commissioner Kokan Division And ORS

2025-03-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar2 pages

915-wp-3455-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3455 OF 2025 Nareshkumar Ramprakash Chowdhary

...Petitioner

Versus

The Additional Commissioner Konkan Division & Ors.

...Respondents

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. Sunil D. Mishra, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Ms. Rina Pujara (Through V. C.) for the Respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 11th MARCH 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Mulla, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Pujara, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3.

2.

It is the main submission of learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that although he has filed Revision Application challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Mumbai in Eviction Application No.05 of 2024, as the Revisional Authority is not available, Stay Application filed by the Petitioner is not being considered by the Authority. 3.

However, Mr. Mulla, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions states that hearing of Revision Application as well as Stay Vaibhav Page No. 1

915-wp-3455-2025.doc Application is scheduled for tomorrow before the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. 4.

The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division is directed to decide either Revision Application or the Stay Application filed in said Revision Application within a period of 15 days from today and till that time the order passed by the Competent Authority shall not be executed.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

6.

It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Vaibhav Page No. 2