'This landlord has shamed other landlords and Christians

	THE TIMES OF INDIA
	Dear Reader,
	Your comment on the article ''Cops ‘frame’, assault innocent youth'' is now displayed on timesofindia.com.
	''This landlord has shamed other landlords and Christians. Act of Police is not shocking as they are known to be always involved in most wrong doings or atleast have been keeping eyes shut in such cases for return. But also note that many frustrated landlords have taken law in hand ( regrettably and very bad) as judiciary is slack, callous, and even siding as many advocates can do setting.''
	To reply to this comment , or see the whole conversation, click here.
	Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
	Regards,
	Team TOI

HC fines four complainants Rs 55,000 for wasting cops’ time by filing cases only to arm twist their rivals in disputes

But in one of my case one habitual nuisance tenant registered a false complaint on 100 and set in motion the police machinery for harassing and arm twisting  me as I protested his parking car in compound illegally. What relief will court grant me and what punishment will court / police give this antisocial person. .....Alok  

HC fines four complainants Rs 55,000 for wasting cops’ time by filing cases only to arm twist their rivals in disputes

Abhijit Sathe and Bapu Deedwania mirrorfeedback@indiatimes.com

Police complaint as a tool to put pressure on your rival in a dispute is no longer as safe an arm twisting method as it used to be.
Taking note of how people file police complaints only to gain an upper hand in a conflict and then rush to courts to have FIRs quashed once the purpose is solved, wasting all the hardwork cops put into investigations, the Bombay High Court has fined four persons in two such cases a total of Rs 55,000.
The order delivered by Justice B R Gavai will not only deter people from filing police complaints they do not wish to pursue to their logical conclusions, but also bring much needed relief to an over-burdened police force.
The Rs 55,000 fine collected in these two cases, Justice Gavai ordered, would go the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund.
One of the two cases involved a dispute between the owner of an apartment and a builder, while the other involved a complaint filed by an employee of a businessman against his boss.
The first case was, in fact, a typical Mumbai real estate dispute and also quite symbolic of the situations where cops get used as a threat by one of the parties.
The fight was over a two-bedroom apartment booked by Sushila Patni in Thane's Manpada area in May 2010. The builder, J M Mehta, had lodged a complaint at the Kapurbaodi police station against Patni and one of his own employees, Mukesh Savla, accusing them of changing the price of the apartment in the original agreement.
Patni and Savla later filed a counter-complaint saying that Mehta had issued threats to them and was trying to extort money. Both parties, however, later reached a settlement and approached the High Court seeking directions to quash the FIR.
In the second case, Thane-based oil trader Suresh Thakkar was accused of cheating by his employee Ramesh Kharat. Kharat had alleged that his name was used by Thakkar to open several bank accounts and transactions were carried out without his knowledge.
Kharat filed a complaint at the Vartak Nagar police station. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and the police began its investigations, calling for documents and recording statements of concerned people.
Kharat, however, later arrived at a settlement with his boss and moved High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 
Delivering identical orders in both cases, Justice Gavai said: "There is no element of public law involved in the crime (in both cases). I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. I find that in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute."
While he directed Mukesh Savla, Sushila Patni and Jitendra Mehta to pay Rs 10,000 each to the police department, Suresh Thakkar was asked to pay Rs 25,000.
Advocate Ashok Saraogi, who appeared for Patni and Savla in the first case and Thakkar in the second, said the judge directed the public prosecutor to ensure that the parties involved paid the fine.
DCP (operations) Sheela Sail on Saturday confirmed that she had received all three cheques and that the amount would soon be credited to the Police Welfare Fund.

Dear Tenants Tresspassers

Dear Tenants / Tresspassers:

In ur heart u will agree that Mumbai rent act is one sided and grossly favouring tenants.
However there r some grounds on which lanlord the shelter provider can file case in rent act courts/ small causes court.
There r some ground on which landlord can go to city civil and or even criminal court.
But if both the parties live with understanding and fellowship then such situation can be avoided.I request u to not to do anything to harm the harmony and compelling us to go to court. Pl. note that going to court means money flows out like water. U have to chase ur advocate, court clerk, xerex wala,stamp wala,typing wala etc.Gather evidences,documents, witnesses.Worst is dates after dates in court will have to spend.Easily one case till end can cost anywhere from Rs.50000/- to 2 lacs.And that is not the end rather it is begining.Then  may have to approach higher courts.
So for any wise person court is the last choice.
Hope u will avoid a situation which warrnts legal action.I for one want to avoid courts. Rather I am one who would like panchas to decide small issues as by going to court matters worsen as some advocates add spice to the simple case and make it acidic / ulceritic.
So I repeat do not give any opportunity which calls for filing of cases against each other. Same is very taxing on time and money and B.P..By the way u all know what r the issues and avoid them.
Let us resolve issues by peacefully settling same.Once in court then there is no reversal.Then I would like to not sit down but fight to finish.
If there r any comments or suggestions then pl. write back to me.

Thanking you,

Alok Tholiya

http://wikimapia.org/2705028/P

 24 months ago Bharat Purohit   -1  
This house was built by Dr. Kalyanbaksh Purohit in 1960. He had 6 sons. Dr G.N. Purohit, Nand kishore Purohit, Triloki Nath Purohit, Kailash Nath Purohit, Kashi Nath Purohit, and Ravindra Nath Purohit. Manmohan Purohit, Bharat Purohit, Deepak Purohit,and Madhukar Purohit were the next generation. The children of Manmohan Purohit are Sonu, Shradha, and Vishwas. The daughters of Bharat Purohit, Deepak Purohit, and Madhukar Purohit are Deepshikha, Deeksha, Nidhi, Manavi, Mahima, Anjali, and Maitri. Ravindra Nath Purohit's children are Vishal and Mitul Purohit. Kashi Nath Purohit's children are Darshana and Vandana Purohit.

 http://wikimapia.org/2705028/P

Home > Mumbai > Report: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1839143/report-court-can-t-split-landlord-s-family-to-let-tenant-stay-high-court

Court can't split landlord's family to let tenant stay: High court

Saturday, May 25, 2013, 7:35 IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

Urvi Mahajani  

Says judge can't tell owner how to use his property.

A family of six can’t be separated and the tenant can’t be allowed to stay on, said the Bombay high court while reversing the order of joint district judge. The tenant will have to vacate the house.

Justice BR Gavai was hearing an appeal filed by Sudha Barve challenging the June 2002 order of the joint district judge, Thane, which allowed Ranjana Padhye to continue her tenancy despite her admitting that she owns a building in Dombivli.

The joint district judge had said the Barves owned a flat in Badlapur where her son and his family could shift. The Barves have two flats in Shrikripa Building in Gawand Peth in Thane — a two-room-kitchen flat measuring 650 sqft on the ground floor and a one-room kitchen measuring 300 sqft on the first floor.

In 1974, the ground floor flat was rented to Ramesh Padhye for Rs160 a month for residential purpose. After Ramesh’s death, his wife Ranjana continued to stay there and started a crèche in the flat.

Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family — Sudha, her divorced daughter, son Yeshwant, his wife and their two children. Sudha passed away and her daughter, Rekha, contested the suit.

SC Joshi, Barve’s counsel, said Yeshwant’s children are grown up and they need more space. He added that Padhye’s children were earning handsomely and they owned a house in Dombivli.

GR Agrawal, Padhye’s counsel, claimed the Barves owned a house in Badlapur as well where Yeshwant and his family could shift. Joshi countered saying that the Badlapur flat was owned by Dinkar Deshpande, the daughter-in-law’s father and he lives there.

Justice Gavai said: “It was not for the appellate court (joint district judge) to have directed that the plaintiff’s (Barve’s) family be separated and plaintiff and her daughter should stay at Thane and other members be shifted at Badlapur.”

Quoting a Supreme Court order, justice Gavai said: “As observed by the apex court, it is not for the court to dictate to the landlord how he should use the property.”

The case
In 1974, the Barves had given their Thane flat on rent to the Padhyes for residential purpose.

Barve terminated the tenancy through a notice on June 22, 1994, saying that they were six-member family and needed the flat.

But Padhye refused to vacate and the case went to court.

Land use classification for 2013 to 2023

Since mine is a building in lower level

Personal request

Inbox

x

Smita Ghia	Nov 20 (2 days ago)
to me

We had same problem every monsoon  in our old bunglow  and for smooth passing of cars I was doing the same thing. I understand your problem I will inform in my building will do best what I can do.
About IAC I am ready to work for our area but for going out of station, my husband will never give me permission.If we cant walk on the roads, we cant have pure drinking water how can we ignore? Outside  Anjalees Lab (outside Rukshmani villa) Shree Krishnavada pav center on the footpath is given drinking water line on footpath.(Cooking on roads is prohibited by supreme Court) Every year Mr.Chemburkar sends sample to water department for foul smell in water.In Kishish Kunj people fill water from groundfloor.. We also have problem many a times.In such situation I feel I should work for my area.I don't have even energy to go to far away places.But unless we have our proper Association and unite we will not get our rights.We sold our one flat and bought in Orbit Terrace near Big Bazar in Mumbai.Smita Ghia.


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Alok Tholiya <atholiya@gmail.com> wrote:

As u r aware that mine is a old building. There r 5 tenants and tresspassers.Two of them have cars worth Rs 10l acs and above but do not pay meagre rent of Rs 40/- per month approx.

They expolit the building to the fullest but do not wish to maintain same.

 

Since mine is a building in lower level every year the monsoon floods the compound. I wish to raise the level of compound. If any one has problem in disposing of rabit ( rabit means peices of bricks and cement mortar gathered after breaking civil work for new constructions).

 

Then u may seek my consent and dump same in my compound in the area advised by my office Incharge Ms. Sandhya : Tel no 26125699 ( Mon to Sat between 10 ma to 6 pm) .

 
Thanks and Regards,
Alok Tholiya,

Marigold Hall,Tholiya Bhavan,

10Th Rd., Santacruz East,

Mumbai 400055

9324225699