Bombay High Court
SHRI RAMCHANDRA GOVIND GEHANIversusSHRI MOHD. HANIF ABDUL SHAIKH
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The revision is dismissed, upholding the trial and appellate courts' findings that the eviction suit fails on all three grounds.
Summary
The landlord, Shri Ramchandra Govind Gehani, filed a civil revision challenging the trial and appellate courts' concurrent findings that his eviction suit under the Rent Act should be dismissed. The landlord relied on three grounds: the tenant’s alleged willful default in rent, unauthorized permanent construction, and the landlord’s bonafide requirement for the premises. The courts held that no statutory notice of default was served, the tenant had deposited rent and property taxes, and therefore could not be deemed a willful defaulter. They also found that the tenant’s construction of a latrine was authorized by the Nagarparishad, negating the permanent‑construction ground, and that the landlord’s claim of needing the rooms for business was unsupported, especially given the tenant’s evidence of the rooms’ good condition. The revisional court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, finding no error in the application of Rent Act principles, and dismissed the revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
Issues considered
- Whether the tenant can be declared a willful defaulter without a statutory notice under the Rent Act
- Whether the tenant’s construction of a latrine constitutes unauthorised permanent construction
- Whether the landlord’s claim of bonafide requirement for the premises is substantiated
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. 115
- Rent Act
Subjects
- eviction
- Rent Act
- willful defaulter
- bonafide requirement
- permanent construction
- civil revision
- Section 115 CPC
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:10581
Diksha Rane 22 CRA 360 2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
22 CRA/360/2008
[Civil]
SHRI RAMCHANDRA GOVIND GEHANI
VS
SHRI MOHD. HANIF ABDUL SHAIKH
------------
None present.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 4 MARCH 2026.
P.C. :
1) The present civil revision application is filed by the landlord
challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and
the Appellate Court.
2) The present applicant-landlord of the suit premises filed a suit
for eviction under the Rent Act on the ground of willful defaulter,
bonafide requirement and permanent construction made by the
tenant without permission. The plaintiff examined two witnesses and
the defendant examined himself. The trial Court and the Appellate
Court concurrently held that as far as the ground of “defaulter” is
concerned, there is no Statutory Notice issued by the landlord. The
tenant has preferred an application on 29/3/2004 before the trial
1
Diksha Rane 22 CRA 360 2008.doc
Court wherein he deposited the rent of Rs.2,520/-. The tenant has
also deposited the property taxes of suit premises with the
Nagarparishad. Therefore, the tenant cannot be called as “willful
defaulter”.
3) As regards the ground of permanent construction is concerned,
from the evidence it can be seen that the defendant was allotted two
rooms in which there was no latrine. The Nagarparishad had issued
Notice to construct a new latrine. Pursuant to which the tenant
constructed a new latrine which was as per permission granted by the
Nagarparishad. Therefore, there cannot be any ground of eviction on
the ground of permanent construction by the tenant.
4) As far as the ground of bonafide requirement is concerned, it is
come on record that apart from the suit premises, the landlord was in
possession of the four rooms which were on first floor and used as
godown. It was the plaintiff’s case that the rooms were in a
dilapidated condition and posed a danger to the residents. It is also
come on record that the plaintiff has not received any notice from
Nagarparishad/Planning Authority. The evidence of the
defendant/tenant showed that the said rooms were in good condition
and the plaintiff could have started his business in the said rooms.
2
Diksha Rane 22 CRA 360 2008.doc
The plaintiff has also stated that due to his old age, it is not possible
to start business in the name of “Poonam Cloth Stores”. On such
evidence, the trial Court and the Appellate Court have also rejected
the suit filed on the ground of bonafide requirement.
5) At this stage, Advocate Suresh Sabrad appeared and mentioned
that he was appearing for applicants earlier, but they have taken back
papers from him, and have now engaged Advocate A. M. Kulkarni.
However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
6) I have gone through both the impugned judgments. Learned
Judges have taken into consideration the evidence on record and
have applied the correct Rent Act principles then, if a view is taken by
two Courts, in my opinion, interference in Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is not called for.
7) The Civil Revision Application is dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
3
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/03/2026 20:49:55
Checking your session…