Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED ALI RAJABALLY YUSUFALLYversusATEEQ ANWAR AGBOATWALA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARUN R PEDNEKER
Holding
The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the applicant’s failure to pay rent for 7‑8 years under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act precludes any reconsideration of the non‑user finding.
Summary
The applicant Mohammed Ali challenged a decree that had been passed against him on the ground that he was a non‑user of the suit premises for more than six months prior to the filing of the suit. The trial court and the appellate court had both found that the premises were not used by the applicant during that period, and consequently dismissed the claim for arrears of rent. The applicant contended that electricity bills proved his possession and use of the premises and that the courts erred in ignoring this evidence. He also raised the issue of non‑payment of rent during the pendency of the proceedings, for which he offered no explanation. The High Court, noting the applicant’s failure to pay rent for 7‑8 years under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, declined to revisit the non‑user finding and dismissed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the defendants (applicant) were not using the suit premises for more than six months prior to the filing of the suit
- Whether the plaintiff proved arrears of rent for the period claimed
- Whether there was unlawful sub‑letting of the premises
- Whether the suit was maintainable in view of non‑joinder of necessary parties
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 15(1)
Subjects
- revision
- non‑user premises
- rent arrears
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- civil procedure
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2023
MOHAMMED ALI S/O. RAJABALLY YUSUFALLY ...APPLICANT
Versus
ATEEQ ANWAR AGBOATWALA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Arif Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Anupam Surve a/w Mr. Nikhil Mutha & Ms. Ashwini
Sonawane i/b M/s. Nanu Hormasjee And Co., Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 7th JULY, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Suit filed
by the Respondents is decreed against the Applicant on the ground of
Page 1 of 5
th
7 JULY, 2026
Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx
non-user of the suit premises for more than 6 months prior to the
filing of the Suit. He submits that as regards the other issues before
the Court, i.e. the ground of non-payment of rent, the learned Trial
Court has held that there is no rent due and payable.
3. The learned Trial Court has formulated the issues as
under :-
SR. ISSUES FINDINGS
NO.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that In the affirmative
defendants are not using the suit
premises for more than six months
prior to filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that In the negative
defendants are in arrears of rent for
the period from 1/6/2007 till
28/2/2011 @ Rs.195/- amounting to
Rs.8,775/-?
2B. Whether the plaintiff proves unlawful In the negative
subletting of the suit premises by
defendant No.1 on or after 1/2/1973?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for Inquiry is necessary
the mesne profits as claimed for?
4. Whether the defendants prove that In the negative
suit is not maintainable due to non-
joinder of necessary parties?
Page 2 of 5
th
7 JULY, 2026
Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx
4B. Whether the defendants are willing In the negative
and ready to pay the arrears of rent as
claimed by the plaintiffs?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for In the affirmative.
the relief as claimed for ?
6. What order and decree ? As per order below
4. Only upon the issue of non-user for 6 months prior to filing
of the Suit, the Suit is decreed as regards arrears, the learned Trial
Court has held that there is no arrears of rent for the said period.
5. In the Appeal filed by the Appellant, the Appellate Court
has also concurred on the non-user of the suit premises for more
than 6 months prior to the filing of the Suit. The Appellate Court has
also rendered a finding that under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999, the Applicant herein has failed to pay rent
for more than 7-8 years during pendency and disposal of the
proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant has harped on the issue
as regards non-user of the suit premises. He submits that on all other
Page 3 of 5
th
7 JULY, 2026
Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx
issues, i.e. the issue of sub-letting was not established and the
electricity bills produced today before the Court, clearly established
that the Applicant was in possession of the suit premises and was
using the suit premises. Both the Courts have erred in not relying
upon the electricity bills and therefore, had rendered an erroneous
finding that the Applicant was not using the suit premises.
7. Even if this Court proceeds to examine the issue of non-user
of suit premises for six months prior to filing of the Suit, however as
regards the issue of non-payment of rent during pendency of the
proceedings, learned counsel for Applicant has offered no
explanation for the same before this Court.
8. Considering that there is non-payment of rent for 7-8 years
during pendency of the proceedings, this Court would not entertain
the present Revision Application and render any alternate finding on
the aspect of non-user of the suit premises.
Page 4 of 5
th
7 JULY, 2026
Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx
9. Revision Application merits no consideration and
accordingly dismissed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.07.23
10:54:13 +0530
Page 5 of 5
th
7 JULY, 2026
Checking your session…