SAU. YAMINI Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 7010/2017 has been filed by the Landlords to challenge the judgment dated 3.8.2017 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 36/2016 by the District Judge-13, Nagpur and seek confirmation of the judgment dated 18.9.2014 passed in M.J.C. No. 23/2008 by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur. Writ Petition No. 33/2018 has been filed by the Tenant to challenge and set aside Clause 2 of the judgment dated 3.8.2017 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 36/2016 in respect of the same property. Since facts are common and similar, both the Petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(3.) In Petition No. 33/2018 the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 3rd August, 2017, in Civil Revision Application No. 36 of 2016 passed by the learned District Judge-13, Nagpur, whereby the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner (Original Appellant) under Section 34 (IV) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came to be partly allowed. By the said order, Petitioner was directed to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 6,000/- per month towards the user of the suit shop/flat to the Respondents.