Bombay High Court Extends Protective Orders Against Evictions And DispossessionsTill August 30, No Further Extension
The Bombay High Court has refused to continue its unconditional extension of all interim orders in Maharashtra beyond August 30, given the improving covid situation and resumption in the physical functioning of courts. (Suo Motu PIL NO. 1 of 2021) A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justices AA Sayyed, SS Shinde and PB Varale had kept all orders or decrees for...
The Bombay High Court has refused to continue its unconditional extension of all interim orders in Maharashtra beyond August 30, given the improving covid situation and resumption in the physical functioning of courts. (Suo Motu PIL NO. 1 of 2021)
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justices AA Sayyed, SS Shinde and PB Varale had kept all orders or decrees for eviction, dispossession or demolition after April 9, in abeyance, owing to the State's lockdown restrictions and access to justice not being free.
"..we are of the clear opinion that situation that impelled this bench to interfere and pass the interim protective orders may not be in existence anymore, which would require the extension of such orders.
However, since the public at large may be under the belief that they are protected by the orders of this bench, we wish to clarify that such interim protection will continue till August 30th and not beyond," the Chief Justice said dictating the order.
The order applies to Bombay High Court at its Principal Seat in Mumbai, Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad, the High Court of Bombay at Goa, and the courts/tribunals subordinate to it. It also applies to courts/tribunals in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu.
The bench earlier noted that it is extending the life of interim orders to extend protection to those who are disabled to access justice because of the restricted functioning of courts/ tribunals.
The court had directed that conditional orders of any court/ tribunal/ authority allowing occupation of any premises subject to payment of rent or occupation charges will continue, notwithstanding the non-deposit of rent or occupation charges between April 9, 2021 and August 13, 2021.
Similarly, for failure and/or omission to deposit rent or occupation charges in terms of the rent control legislation and/or the other relevant statutes will not immediately make the tenant or occupant liable for eviction until further orders, whichever is earlier.
The bench had earlier extended life of all interim orders till July 9, 2012.