Bombay High Court
SMT. LATA DADABHAU PONDEversusSHRI RAHUL KARBHARI PINGALE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The appeal is dismissed, affirming the decree for eviction as the appellant has no right to remain in possession after the licence expired.
Summary
The appellant, originally Defendant No.1, claimed continued possession of a shop premises based on a leave and licence agreement executed with the lessee's partner, which was set for three years starting 1 October 2001. The licence term had unequivocally expired, and the appellant persisted in occupying the premises despite the lapse. The trial court and the principal district judge found the appellant's defenses inconsistent and without merit, ordering clear and vacant possession to the plaintiff, the owner of the suit premises. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and concluded that the appellant had no legal right to remain after the licence expired. Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal and the related interim application, upholding the eviction decree.
Issues considered
- Whether a person holding premises under a leave and licence agreement can retain possession after the licence term has expired.
Subjects
- licence agreement
- expiry of licence
- possession
- eviction
- civil appeal
- second appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:24507
26 sa 16 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.16 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2026
Lata Dadabhau Ponde ... Appellant
versus
Rahul Karbhari Pingale and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Uday B. Nighot, for Appellant.
Mr. B.H.Goswami, for Respondents.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 17 JUNE 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
15 September 2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge in RCA
No.95 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellant – original
Defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in
RCS No.2050 of 2012 thereby directing the Defendant to deliver clear and
vacant possession of the shop premises admeasuring 12.19, City Survey
No.346, mauje Naupada, Dist. Thane, came to be dismissed.
3. Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. The
Appellant – Defendant No.1 claimed to have come in possession of the suit
premises pursuant to a leave and licence agreement executed by Pannadevi
SSP 1/2
26 sa 16 of 2026.doc
Shyamsunder Khandelwal, who was the partner of M/s. Poorna Warehousing
Corporation, the lessee of the suit premises, for a term of three years
commencing from 1 October 2001.
4. Incontrovertibly, the term of the licence had expired. Defendant No.1
took mutually destructive pleas to hold on to the licenced premises.
5. The Courts below, upon appreciation of evidence, have negatived the
claim of the Appellant to hold on to the licenced premises after the expiry of
the term of the licence. Myriad defences, which were inconsistent with each
other, were found to be unworthy of acceptance.
6. Since the term of licence has expired and the Appellant has no
semblance of right to hold on to the suit premises, the Courts below were
justified in passing the decree for eviction.
7. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for
consideration.
8. The Second Appeal, thus, stands dismissed.
9. In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, Interim Application No.52
of 2026 also stands dismissed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 2/2
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/06/2026 11:54:23
Checking your session…