Maharashtra Rent Control Act - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...

Tag: Maharashtra Rent Control Act

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage