DR. DEEPAK CHHOTELAL AGARWALversusPRADEEP CHHOTELAL AGARWAL (DECEASED) THR. LRS. NEETA PRADEEP AGARWAL AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:39284

                                                             24-CRA-530-2019.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2019
   Swapnil
               Dr. Deepak Chhotelal Agarwal.                 …Applicant
                    Vs.
               Pradeep Chhotelal Agarwal (deceased)
               Thr. Lrs. Neeta Pradeep Agarwal and Ors.      …Respondents


               Mr. Sndeep S. Jinsiwale for the applicant.

                                      CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                      DATE :      23rd SEPTEMBER 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    This civil revision application is filed by the original

               plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees

               dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is the tenant of

               the suit premises. The plaintiff is one of the sons of the

               original tenant, i.e. Mr. Chhotelal Bhagwandas Agarwal.

               Respondent no.1 is the plaintiff’s brother in whose name the

               rent receipt is transferred. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the

               landlords. The original tenant has expired on 26 th September

               1989. According to the plaintiff the rent receipt was

               transferred in the name of defendant no.1 sometime in 2001.

               Hence, the suit was filed on 19 th January 2006 seeking


                                            1/4
                                               24-CRA-530-2019.docx


declaration of tenancy.


2.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

consent letter at Exhibit ‘89’ showing that the other heirs and

legal representatives of the original tenant had consented for

transferring the rent receipt in the name of defendant no.1 is

not proved in evidence. The applicant had specifically denied

that he had anytime consented to transfer the rent receipt in

the name of defendant no.1. Learned counsel for the

applicant relies upon Section 7 (15)(d) of the Maharashtra

Rent Control Act, 1999. He contends that the applicant would

be entitled for a declaration of tenancy as he was residing

along with the original tenant. Learned counsel for the

applicant submits that both the courts have failed to take into

consideration the substantial evidence produced by the

applicant to show that he was residing in the suit premises

and therefore, he would be entitled for a declaration.


3.    I have perused the papers of the application. The date

of death of the original tenant is not in dispute. If the

applicant seeks a declaration of tenancy on the ground that

he was residing along with the original tenant at the time of

his death, it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove with


                              2/4
                                                24-CRA-530-2019.docx


supporting evidence that he was residing with the original

tenant at the time of his death. The plaintiff is not seeking any

declaration on the ground of any assignment of the tenancy,

but he seeks a declaration in terms of Section 7 (15)(d) of the

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 under which the tenancy

can be claimed on the ground that the plaintiff was residing

along with the original tenant at the time of his death.


4.    Both the courts have concurrently held that there is no

sufficient evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff was

residing with the tenant at the time of his death. Both the

courts have discussed the pleading and the evidence on

record which shows that the plaintiff commenced his medical

practice at Neera, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune in 1979 and in

1997, he started the hospital at Hadapsar, Pune. Thus, from

the plaintiff’s own contention it appears that when the original

tenant had expired on 26 th September 1989, the plaintiff was

residing at a different place. The other documentary evidence

in the form of bank statements is disbelieved by both the

courts on the ground that they do not show that the plaintiff

was residing with the original tenant at the time of his death.

Filing of the suit after more than 16 years from the date of



                               3/4
                                                24-CRA-530-2019.docx


death is also considered as an important aspect to disbelieve

the plaintiff’s theory of tenancy on the ground that he was

residing with the original tenant at the time of his death. In

the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff was residing

with the original tenant at the time of his death, both the

courts have rightly refused to grant any declaration. In the

absence of any material produced by the plaintiff, the

arguments raised on inadmissibility of letter at Exhibit ‘89’

would not be relevant and it is unnecessary to discuss it in

this civil revision application.


5.    I do not find any error in the reasons recorded by both

the courts disbelieving the plaintiff’s theory of tenancy for

seeking a declaration of tenancy under Section 7 (15)(d) of

the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. There is no

jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons

recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any

interference in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”).


6.    The civil revision application, is therefore, dismissed.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]

                                   4/4