MR. SHASHIKANT LAXMICHAND DHULLA,THR. POA. HIREN SHUSHIKANT DHULLAversusMRS. RUXMANI N. GOSALIA (DECEASED) MRS. HEMA APURVA MEHTA AND ORS

                                                                        16-CRA-334-2018.docx



           rrpillai
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 334 OF 2018

                        Mr. Shashikant Laxmichand Dhula          …     Applicant
                              Vs.
                        Mrs. Ruxmani N. Gosalia                  …     Respondents
                        (since deceased) Mrs. Hema Apurva
                        Mehta and Others


                        Mr. Sanjay T. Manek for the Applicant.
                        Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Jamsheed Master
                        and Mr. Aniket Worlikar i/b. Nitin Morajkar for Respondent
                        No. 1.
                                               CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                               DATE :       9th SEPTEMBER 2026

                        ORDER :


                        1.    This civil revision application is filed by the original

                        plaintiff to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the

                        appellate bench of the Small Causes Court setting aside the

                        trial court’s decree in his favour. The trial court had allowed

                        his suit, thereby declaring that the plaintiff is a tenant in

                        respect of the suit premises, i.e. Room No. B-2 on the

                        ground floor of Lal Bungalow. The applicant is claiming

                        through the original tenant, who, according to him, was his
           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH       grandmother.
RAMESH     PILLAI
PILLAI     Date:
           2026.09.11
           12:38:19                                  1/10
           +0530
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


2.    In an appeal preferred by defendant no. 1, the appeal

bench has considered the documentary and oral evidence on

record and disbelieved the plaintiff’s case that he is a tenant

of the suit premises. The plaintiff did not step into the witness

box and led evidence through the power of attorney holder.


3.    Learned counsel for the applicant (“plaintiff”) submits

that various documents were produced on record and

considered by the trial court to accept that he is a monthly

tenant of the suit premises. He submits that the appellate

bench has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence

placed on record. According to the learned counsel for the

plaintiff, the appellate court erroneously decided the issue of

limitation by holding that the suit is barred by the law of

limitation. He submits that the plaintiff was continuously

paying rent, and since the landlord refused to accept it, he

issued a notice requesting the landlord to accept the rent

amount from the plaintiff. Since the landlord refused to

accept rent from July 2000, the right to sue accrued in favour

of the plaintiff, and the suit filed in February 2001 is well

within limitation. He relies upon Article 58 of the Limitation

Act, 1963 to show that the suit is within the limitation. He



                              2/10
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


therefore submits that the impugned judgment and decree

would warrant interference by this court.


4.    I have perused the papers. The appeal bench has

considered in detail the pleadings with reference to the cause

of action pleaded by the plaintiff. The right to sue in

December 2000 is not accepted as a valid cause of action for

claiming limitation as provided under Article 58 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff is seeking declaration as

tenant under Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent

Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”). The appeal court has

therefore held that after the death of the original tenant in the

year 1975, the right to sue accrued to claim tenancy as

contemplated under Section 7(15)(d) of the Rent Act. The

date of death of the original tenant is not in dispute. Hence,

merely claiming to be the grandson of the original tenant and

issuing a notice to accept rent from him is not a valid and

meaningful cause of action.


5.     The plaintiff claims to have been residing in the suit

premises along with his father. A dispute has been raised as

to whether his father was a real son or was adopted by the

original tenant. Defendant no.1 contended that there is an


                              3/10
                                                16-CRA-334-2018.docx


inter se dispute between the family members of the original

tenant and further disputed the relationship of the plaintiff

with the original tenant. The plaint is bereft of any pleadings

as to why defendant nos. 2 to 8 were subsequently added as

parties; out of the said defendants, only defendant no. 8 filed

a written statement. Defendant no. 8 contended that

defendant nos. 2 to 8 and the plaintiff resided in the suit

premises and another premises, i.e. room no. D-6 in the

same building. Thus, even defendant no. 8 claimed tenancy

rights in the suit premises.


6.    The plaintiff failed to examine his father to support his

contention that he always resided with the original tenant

along with his father. The plaintiff’s power of attorney holder

admitted in cross-examination that defendant no. 7, Sharad

Dhulla, was residing with the original tenant when she

expired in 1975.


7.    Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the list of

documents annexed on page 83 of the Civil Revision

Application. He submits that all these documents support the

applicant’s case that he is in possession of the suit premises.

He further refers to the findings recorded by the appeal court


                               4/10
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


in paragraph nos. 21 to 23 of the judgment. He submits that

the appeal court did not correctly appreciate the documents

referred to. He therefore submits that this court’s intervention

is necessary to correctly appreciate the documents produced

by the applicant which prove that he was in possession of the

suit premises.

8.    The appeal bench has recorded that the documents

which are in the name of the plaintiff do not pertain to the

description of the suit premises and they refer only to the

address which is mentioned as ‘Lal Bungalow ’. The appeal

bench of the small causes court also referred to other

documents and admissions by the plaintiff’s power of

attorney holder that the family of Laxmichand Dhulla held two

premises, having in their possession B-2 and D-6. Hence,

with reference to the description of the suit property, the

appeal bench has appreciated all the documents and

recorded the findings of fact that none of the documents

would show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

premises and, more particularly, to show as residing along

with the original tenant for claiming tenancy as defined under

Section 7(15(d) of the Rent Act. I have perused the findings

recorded by the trial court and the appellate court. I do not
                              5/10
                                                  16-CRA-334-2018.docx


see any fault in the reasons recorded by the appeal bench

with reference to the address mentioned in all the documents

that are relied upon by the plaintiff.

9.     Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the

decision of this court in the case of Pius Bonaventure

Fernandes Vs. Manu Narang (Deceased) through Lrs 1, to

support his submissions that the suit for declaration of the

tenancy would be within the limitation as it is filed within three

years from the date of refusal of the landlord to recognise the

plaintiff as a tenant. He submits that, in the said decision, this

Court has taken the time to file a suit for the relief of

declaration would begin to run only from the defendant's

express denial of the plaintiff's tenancy rights. He submits

that even the present suit is filed within three years from the

date of the landlord's refusal to recognise the plaintiff as a

tenant and to accept the rent offered by the plaintiff by notice.

He therefore submits that the original tenant’s date of death

is irrelevant.

10.    I have perused the said decision. In the facts of the

said case, the defendant has not denied the plaintiff's

tenancy right, as evidenced by the order passed in the suit.
1 2012 (2) ALL MR 112

                               6/10
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


The order passed by the trial court is reproduced in the said

judgment. Hence, with reference to the facts of the said case,

where the landlord had not denied the tenancy rights of the

plaintiff, and there was also a prayer for possession, this

court held that the denial of the tenancy right would be a

relevant date for computing the period of limitation.

11.   In the present case, the landlord specifically denied the

plaintiff's tenancy rights. The appeal court disbelieved the

documents relied upon by the plaintiff to support his

contention of possession, as they lacked specific documents

describing the suit property to establish that the plaintiff was

in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has not

produced any supporting documents showing possession of

the suit property, nor any documentary evidence that the

landlord accepted rent from the plaintiff. Hence, the issue

regarding denial of recognition of the plaintiff as a tenant

would not be a relevant factor for computing the period of

limitation. The appeal bench has therefore rightly appreciated

the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and the evidence on record

to decide the issue of limitation.

12.   The appeal bench discussed the pleading that the right


                               7/10
                                                   16-CRA-334-2018.docx


to sue first accrued on 7th December 2000, when the

plaintiff's notice was replied to denying the plaintiff’s status as

a tenant. The tenancy in the present case is admittedly

claimed by the plaintiff as the heir and legal representative of

the original deceased tenant. The plaintiff claims to have

resided in the suit premises along with his father. Hence, on

the ground that the plaintiff is the tenant’s grandson, he

claims tenancy rights. However, in view of the admissions

given by the plaintiff’s witness with reference to the different

addresses shown in respect of the documents relied upon by

the plaintiff, his claim is disbelieved for the purpose of

computing limitation on the ground that denial of recognition

of his tenancy rights is not a relevant date for computation of

limitation. Hence, considering the admissions given by the

plaintiff, the reasons recorded by the appeal bench cannot be

faulted. Thus, in view of the different facts of the present

case, the observations made by this court in the decision of

Pius Bonaventure Fernandes, relied upon by the learned

counsel for the applicant, would not be of any assistance in

the present case.


13.   With reference to the findings recorded by the appellate



                               8/10
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


court, discussing the entire evidence and the admission

given by the power of attorney holder, the plaintiff’s claim is

disbelieved that he was at any time residing in the suit

premises. Although the learned counsel for the applicant has

relied on various documents referred to by the trial court in

the judgment, none of the documents supports the tenancy

claim for a declaration of tenancy as defined under Section

7(15)(d) of the Rent Act.


14.   With reference to the findings recorded by the appellate

court, after considering the entire evidence and the

admissions given by the power of attorney holder of the

plaintiff, the findings of fact do not warrant any interference.

In the absence of any particular evidence to support the

plaintiff’s theory of being in possession with the original

tenant, the appellate bench has rightly reversed the trial

court’s decree. I do not find any jurisdictional or any other

manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned

judgment warranting any interference under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.


15.   The civil revision application is devoid of any merit.

Hence, the civil revision application is dismissed.


                              9/10
                                                 16-CRA-334-2018.docx


16.   In view of dismissal of the civil revision application, the

pending interim application is disposed of as infructuous.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                              10/10