Bombay High Court
SHRI SHYAM NARAYAN RUDRAKARversusSHRI SURESH GANGARAM KHALADKAR and ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The court affirmed the trial and appellate courts' finding of bona‑fide requirement and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Shri Shyam Narayan Rudrakar, was a tenant of a ground‑floor commercial premises of about 120 sq.ft. in Pune, which he used for a furniture shop and as a lodge. The respondents, including Shri Suresh Gangaram Khaladkar, claimed bona‑fide requirement of the premises for their own residence and for the commercial activity of performing "Riyaz" by a family member. The trial and appellate courts had upheld the respondents' eviction claim on the ground of bona‑fide requirement. The petitioner challenged these findings by filing a writ petition, also seeking a stay of the eviction order. Justice Rajesh S. Patil examined the respondents' own three‑storey building and the limited size of the additional premises they possessed, concluding that the bona‑fide requirement was genuine and the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was given two months to vacate the premises, with the request for a six‑week stay rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents have a bona‑fide requirement for the commercial premises sufficient to justify eviction of the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner's claim of continued use of the premises warrants a stay of the eviction order.
Subjects
- eviction
- bona fide requirement
- commercial premises
- lease
- stay of execution
- writ petition
- landlord-tenant
Judgment
KVM
1/3
27 - WP 1168 OF 1997.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.07.07
20:07:21
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 1168/1997
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16162/2023
ALONGWITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2587/2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1168/1997
SHRI SHYAM NARAYAN RUDRAKAR ….. PETITIONER
VS
SHRI SURESH GANGARAM KHALADKAR & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
Adv. Tejas Deshmukh a/w. Adv. Omkar Somvanshi i/b. Adv. Sagar
Kursija for the Petitioner.
Adv. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Respondents.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 2 JULY, 2026
P.C. :-
1) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner,
challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court of eviction on the ground of bona fide
requirement.
2) The suit premises is ground floor premises admeasuring
about 120 sq.ft. located at Kasba Peth, Pune where the petitioner is
running a furniture shop. It is the case of the plaintiff – respondent
KVM
2/3
27 - WP 1168 OF 1997.doc
that they require the suit premises for their residence and for their
business. As far as the business is concerned, it is the case of the
plaintiff that the plaintiff no.3 requires it for performing ‘Riyaz’ as he
is from ‘Sanai’ player.
3) Though, the requirement of the plaintiff is for composite
purpose, for business and residence, since the suit premises is a
commercial premises, I am considering only the suit premises
requirement for a commercial purpose. There is specific case of the
plaintiffs that they require the suit premises for plaintiff no.3 for
performing “Riyaz”. So also, it has come on record that the petitioner
– tenant is owning a building consisting of three floors, which the
petitioner is using as a lodge.
4) Further, it has come on record that during the pendency
of the suit, the plaintiff got possession of one more premises, which is
admeasuring around 80 sq.ft.. As far as the findings recorded as far as
requirement of other plaintiffs is concerned, with regard to residence,
I am not going into that issue as I am only considering the
requirement of the plaintiff for the purpose of commercial use i.e. for
the use of performing “Riyaz” for the plaintiff no.3.
5) Considering the fact that the defendants themselves have
their own building of three floors, where they are running a lodge, I
KVM
3/3
27 - WP 1168 OF 1997.doc
am of the view that ground of bona fide requirement as held by the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court needs to be confirmed. The
findings as regard to suppression of one room received by the
plaintiffs, which is residential room, will not make much difference in
the present proceedings as the size of the said room is 80 sq.ft.
Hence, I find no merit in the present writ petition.
6) Writ petition stands dismissed.
7) Two months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the
suit premises.
8) At this stage, Mr.Tejas Deshmukh, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner seeks stay of the present judgment and
order for a period of six weeks. Mr.Deshmukh, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent has opposed this application on the
ground that the petitioner is not using the same.
9) Since I have already granted two months time to the
petitioner to vacate the suit premises, request made by the petitioner
is rejected.
10) Pending civil applications/ interim applications also stand
disposed of.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
Checking your session…