Bombay High Court
SMT. LATA PANDURANG PATANKARversusSHRI. MUSTAQ INDULKAN AGWAN
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The civil revision application is dismissed, and the earlier eviction decrees are upheld.
Summary
The applicant, Smt. Lata Pandurang Patankar, sought to set aside eviction decrees granted on the ground that the premises were required bonafide for his son’s business. The respondent, Shri Mustaq Indulkan Agwan, contended that the plaintiff had not proved the son’s independent business, shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant. The applicant argued that the burden lies with the plaintiff to establish bonafide requirement and that the lower courts erred by shifting it. The High Court examined the pleadings, found the plaintiff’s evidence on the need for the premises accepted by both trial courts, and held that no illegality or perversity existed in the earlier judgments. It further observed that there was no jurisdictional error under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and dismissed the civil revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the burden of proving bonafide requirement for business premises lies on the plaintiff or the defendant
- Whether the lower courts erred in shifting the burden of proof to the defendant
- Whether the eviction decrees should be set aside on the ground of procedural or jurisdictional error under Section 115 CPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115
Subjects
- bonafide requirement
- eviction
- burden of proof
- civil revision
- Section 115 CPC
- landlord-tenant
- business premises
Judgment
5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
varsha
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015
Smt. Lata Pandurang Patankar … Applicant
vs.
Shri Mustaq Indulkan Agwan … Respondent
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande a/w. Ms. Priti Karande for the Applicant
Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026
ORDER:
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2015
1. This application is for bringing on record the proposed
VARSHA
VIJAY respondents in place of deceased sole respondent. In the facts and
RAJGURU
Digitally signed by
VARSHA VIJAY
RAJGURU
Date: 2026.08.21
circumstances of the case, the delay if any is condoned.
18:43:37 +0530
2. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b)
and (c).
3. Amendment to be carried out within three weeks from today.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 598 OF 2013
4. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant
to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees granting
Page no. 1 of 3
5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc
eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff
has prayed for a decree on the ground of bonafide requirement for
starting the business for his son. The particulars of the family
members and the existing business is brought on record by the
plaintiff to support his submission that the premises are bonafide
required for starting business for his son.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the courts
have erroneously shifted the burden on the defendant to prove that
the plaintiff’s son is already carrying out his own business and has
settled down. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
burden cannot be shifted upon the defendant to prove that the
plaintiff’s son is carrying on his own business and it is the obligation
of the plaintiff to prove the bonafide requirement. He therefore
submits that the impugned judgments and decrees would warrant
an interference by this court.
6. I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. The
plaintiff has contended that he has four sons and two wives and that
his sons are unemployed. The particulars regarding one of the
married son dependent upon the plaintiff is also pleaded by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he requires the
suit premises for setting up an independent business for his son,
Page no. 2 of 3
5-cra-598-2013-cac-357-2015.doc
Hamid to carry out grocery business. The plaintiff’s evidence with
regard to the bonafide requirement for the purpose of starting
business is accepted by both the courts.
7. The reference by the trial court that the defendant failed to
prove that the Hamid was carrying on his own independent business
is with reference to the written statement of the defendant that
Hamid is already carrying out his independent business. No
evidence led by the defendant is not the only ground to pass a
decree for eviction. The substantive pleadings and the supporting
evidence regarding the bonafide requirement for setting up an
independent business for his son is concurrently accepted by both
the courts. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons
recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any interference.
8. There is no jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the
reasons recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any
interference in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.
9. The civil revision application is devoid of any merit.
10. The civil revision application is dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 3 of 3
Checking your session…