Bombay High Court
SULTAN AHMAD HAJI AHMED BUX QURESHIversusMR. HASAN KAZIM KAZEMI AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the interim order stands and the suit must be decided on its own merits.
Summary
The petitioner, a landlord, filed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that directed the defendant to deposit rent arrears. The trial court had reviewed its own earlier order and modified the monthly rent in accordance with a judgment in a separate standard rent application, which the petitioner had not contested. The High Court noted that the suit concerning the rent dispute remained pending on grounds of default and bona‑fide requirements, and therefore the interim order should not be disturbed. It held that invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was unnecessary at this stage. The court clarified that the substantive suit must be decided on its merits without influence from the interim order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial court's interim order directing payment of rent.
- Whether the modification of rent by the trial court, based on a standard rent judgment, is valid and binding pending the final decision of the suit.
Subjects
- landlord‑tenant
- rent arrears
- interim order
- Article 227
- review of judgment
- standard rent
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37781
9-WP-2243-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2243 OF 2019
Swapnil
Sultan Ahmad Haji Ahmed Bux Qureshi. …Petitioner
Vs.
Hasan Kazim Kazemi and Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Sanjay P. Shinde for the petitioner.
Mr. Nishant Vyas a/w. Mr. Zain A. K. Najam-Es-Sani i/b. Mr.
R. A. K. Najan-Es-Sani for respondent no.1.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff, i.e. the
landlord to challenge the order passed by the trial court
directing deposit of the amount towards the arrears of rent.
The impugned order is passed in a review application filed by
the defendant seeking review of the order passed by the trial
court on an application filed by the plaintiff directing the
defendant to deposit the amount.
2. By the impugned order the trial court has reviewed its
own order and modified the amount of monthly rent as per
the judgment passed in the standard rent application. The
1/2
9-WP-2243-2019.docx
order passed in the standard rent application is not
challenged by the plaintiff. The suit is still pending on the
ground of default and bona fide requirements including other
grounds. Hence, at this stage, I do not find it necessary to
invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. The
impugned order is an interim order directing the payment of
rent.
3. It is, thus, clarified that the suit shall be decided on its
own merits by the trial court uninfluenced by the observations
in the impugned order.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…