https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187 The court dismissed the petition challenging the order for possession delivery of licensed premises to the respondents. The petitioner's claims that the respondents' application was barred under O. 23 R. 1 of the C.P.C. and S. 31H of the Bombay Rent Act were rejected. The Co-operative Court's error in not granting permission for fresh proceedings upon withdrawal was noted. The judge granted the petitioner time until April 30, 1996, to vacate the premises under specific conditions. The civil revision application was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:09:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187 The court dismissed the petition challenging the order for possession delivery of licensed premises to the respondents. The petitioner's claims that the respondents' application was barred under O. 23 R. 1 of the C.P.C. and S. 31H of the Bombay Rent Act were rejected. The Co-operative Court's error in not granting permission for fresh proceedings upon withdrawal was noted. The judge granted the petitioner time until April 30, 1996, to vacate the premises under specific conditions. The civil revision application was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310187