Following up on the order passed by the Additional District Judge, the landlord issued a numberice to the tenant on 13th February, 2006 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The Trial Court accepted the companytention of the landlord and passed a decree on 28th June, 2005 directing the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for vacant possession of the suit property being CTS Old 99 B Raviwar Peth, New 767 Budhwar Peth, Pune from the tenant.
On the companytrary, the Corporation had sanctioned a development plan submitted by the landlord in respect of the suit property through a numberification issued on 5th January, 1987.
225 of 2009 before the District Judge but that was dismissed by judgment and order dated 19th January, 2012.
The suit was decreed on 3rd March, 2009 and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the landlord.
207 of 2006 in the Court of the Small Causes Judge, Pune for eviction of the tenant.
The tenant did number respond to the numberice and that led the landlord to file Civil Suit No.
The companytention of the landlord was that the suit property was open space let out to the tenants and that it was number protected by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for short the Act .
515 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Pune.
The tenant was given two months time to vacate the suit property.
The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No.
Against the decision passed by the appellate Court the tenant preferred Writ Petition No.
Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No.
Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred Civil Appeal No.
433 of 2000 in the Court of the 5th Additional Small Cause Judge and Jt.
The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court has attained finality since neither the tenant number the landlord has challenged it.
