It is well settled that what would be relevant for an eviction suit, and

It is well settled that what would be relevant for an eviction suit, and

relevant for the suit instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs, is the principal

cause of action which has accrued/existed to the petitioners/plaintiffs on the

date of institution of suit so as to seek eviction of the respondent/tenant on

grounds as permissible under the Rent Act. No doubt, the provisions of

Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act permits inspection of the

premises by the landlord after reasonable notice to the tenant, there is

nothing on record to show such requests for suit inspection of the suit

premises in a manner known to Section 28, was ever made and denied by the

respondent. It is clear that what has been sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs

is something different which cannot be merely conceived under Section 28,

namely, a request made to the Court to appoint a Commissioner and make a

report which would be surely an attempt to gather fresh evidence. The

record clearly indicates that at all material times such a inspection was

permitted by the respondents/defendants.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7245 OF 2019

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1482 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 7245 OF 2019

Smt. Vasanti Gajanan Nerurkar  V/s.  Sudhir Vasu Shetty

CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.

DATE : 25 September, 2019

#commissioner

#order26