Bombay High Court
MEGHRAJ FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIAVATE LIMITEDversusNANDLAL BALKISHAN SAHJWANI
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the termination of the lease and the municipal corporation’s actions are upheld as lawful.
Summary
The petitioners, two surviving partners of the dissolved Khanna Construction House partnership, sought to quash a municipal warrant of attachment, a show‑cause notice and to restore possession of a 999‑year lease land, arguing they were ready to redevelop it. The High Court examined the lease conditions, the partnership’s dissolution decree (2018), the partners’ failure to collectively submit a redevelopment proposal within the six‑month period ordered by the court, and the outstanding property tax arrears. Relying on the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, the Indian Partnership Act (Sec. 47) and precedent that a dissolved partnership cannot create new rights, the Court held the lease termination and attachment were lawful. The petition was dismissed, the court‑receiver discharged, and the municipal corporation’s orders affirmed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the municipal corporation’s warrant of attachment under the MMC Act.
- The legality of the show‑cause notice and termination of the 999‑year lease.
- Whether a dissolved partnership can undertake redevelopment or create new rights.
- The applicability of Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act to the partners’ actions.
- The rights of tenants/occupants versus the petitioners’ claim to the land.
Legislation cited
- Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s. 47
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 202, 203, 206, 354
Subjects
- lease termination
- partnership dissolution
- municipal corporation
- warrant of attachment
- property tax arrears
- court receiver
- redevelopment proposal
- tenant rights
- writ petition
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
SUNNY
SUNNY ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
THOTE Date:
2026.05.11
17:02:30
+0530
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3004 OF 2025
1. Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani, age. 79
Flat no. 22, 2nd floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 036
2. Shakuntala Balkishan Sahjwani
alias Chandni Nanik Lulla, age. 78
A2 Cosmos Society, 12/14, Boat Club Road,
Pune, Maharashtra 411 001 … Petitioners
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001
2. Deputy Municipal Commissioner (IMP.)
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Estates)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
4th Floor Annex Building, MCGM Head
Office Mahapalika Marg CST, Mumbai
Maharashtra 400 001
4. Asst. Assessor & collector, G-South ward,
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
5. Laxmi Rajkiran Grover
Kaushalaya Bhawan B-25, Sophia School
Road, Vallabh Nagar, Kota Rajasthan
324 007
6. Satish Anantram Sabhlok
B-85, Vidhani Mountview, Plot No. 68,
Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra 400 703
7. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok
Flat No.1501, 15th-floor, Vivaant, Plot No.
04, Sector-19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra 400 705
Sunny Thote 1 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
8. Ashrafali Ahmed Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai Maharashtra 400 703
9. Vikram Balkishan Sahjwani
Flat no. 51, 5th floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 036
10. Saroj Khanna
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 059
11. Prasanaata Vikram Patwardhan
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 059
12. Sunil Shyamsunder Chandwani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar
West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
13. Aanchal Sunil Sadhnani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar
West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
14. Manisha Shrinath Shorey
Flat No.102, Okland Park, CHSL, Yamuna
Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai Maharashtra
400 053
15. Vinod Nandlal Khanna
101, Mathapati Meridean 5th Main, 6th
Cross Near BGFI Club, Malleshpalya
Bangalore North New Thippasandra
Karnataka 560 075
16. Baldev Joginderpal Malhotra
403/4, Citi Corner No. 1, Opp. Vijay Dairy,
Sector 29, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400
703
17. Jitender Anantram Sabhlok
B-603 Swarna Society, Plot No 13 and 14,
Sunny Thote 2 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra 410 210
18. Harish Jashanmal Khanna
E-6/101, Happy Home Heights, Poonam
Garden, Mira Bhayander, Thane 401 107
19. Shipra Navin Parwani
8, Anand Villa, 4/283, Parwati Bagla
Road, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
208 002
20. Vivek Jairamdas Makhija
403 Sanskruti Apartment, Harish Nagar,
Sikandra Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282 007
21. Pawan Nandlal Khanna
5011 Sobha Palladian, Yemalur
Kariayammana, Agrahara Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560 037
22. Ahsaan Ashrafali Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 703
23. Shital Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West)
Mumbai Maharashtra 400 054
24. Punit Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West)
Mumbai Maharashtra 400 054
25. Romir Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A
CHS, 8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar
West, Mumbai - 400 052
26. Hema Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai – 400 025
27. Shweta Kumar
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai - 400 052 ….Respondents
Sunny Thote 3 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6720 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3004 OF 2025
Meghraj Financial Consultants Private
Limited
A Private Limited Company, the tenant of
Unit Sr. No.39, having address at Khanna
Construction House, Worli, Mumbai – 400
018 and havint its current address at Ground
floor, Navsari (KK) chambers, PT Marg, Frt
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India – 400001 ….Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani,
Flat no. 22, 2nd floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 036
2. Shakuntala Balkishan Sahjwani
alias Chandni Nanik Lulla,
A2 Cosmos Society, 12/14, Boat Club Road,
Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. … Petitioners
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001
2. Deputy Municipal Commissioner (IMP.)
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Estates)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
4th Floor Annex Building MCGM Head
Office Mahapalika Marg CST, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001
4. Asst. Assessor & Collector, G-South ward,
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
5. Laxmi Rajkiran Grover
Kaushalaya Bhawan B-25, Sophia School
Sunny Thote 4 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Road, Vallabh Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan
324 007
6. Satish Anantram Sabhlok
B-85, Vidhani Mountview, Plot No. 68,
Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 703
7. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok
Flat No.1501, 15th floor, Vivaant, Plot No.
04, Sector-19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 705
8. Ashrafali Ahmed Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 703
9. Vikram Balkishan Sahjwani
Flat no. 51, 5th floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 036
10. Saroj Khanna
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 059
11. Prasanaata Vikram Patwardhan
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 059
12. Sunil Shyamsunder Chandwani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
13. Aanchal Sunil Sadhnani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
14. Manisha Shrinath Shorey
Flat No.102, Okland Park, CHSL, Yamuna
Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra
400 053
Sunny Thote 5 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
15. Vinod Nandlal Khanna
101, Mathapati Meridean 5th Main, 6th Cross
Near BGFI Club, Malleshpalya Bangalore
North New Thippasandra, Karnataka 560
075
16. Baldev Joginderpal Malhotra
403/4, Citi Corner No. 1, Opp. Vijay Dairy,
Sector 29, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400
703
17. Jitender Anantram Sabhlok
B-603 Swarna Society, Plot No 13 and 14,
Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 410 210
18. Harish Jashanmal Khanna
E-6/101, Happy Home Heights, Poonam
Garden, Mira Bhayander, Thane 401 107
19. Shipra Navin Parwani
8, Anand Villa, 4/283, Parwati Bagla
Road, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
208 002
20. Vivek Jairamdas Makhija
403 Sanskruti Apartment, Harish Nagar,
Sikandra Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282 007
21. Pawan Nandlal Khanna
5011 Sobha Palladian, Yemalur
Kariayammana, Agrahara Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560 037
22. Ahsaan Ashrafali Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 703
23. Shital Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West)
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 054
24. Punit Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West),
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 054
Sunny Thote 6 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
25. Romir Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A
CHS, 8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar
West, Mumbai - 400 052
26. Hema Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai – 400 025
27. Shweta Kumar
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai - 400 052 ….Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7191 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3004 OF 2025
Khanna Construction House Commercial
Premises Co-operative society Limited
(Proposed)
a proposed society having, having its
address at Plot No.44, Scheme 58 of Worli
Division, CS No.903, situated at R.G.
Thadani marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018
through the hands of its duly authorized
signatory Mr. Akash Gupta ….Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
1. Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani,
Flat no. 22, 2nd floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 036
2. Shakuntala Balkishan Sahjwani
alias Chandni Nanik Lulla,
A2 Cosmos Society, 12/14, Boat Club Road,
Pune, Maharashtra 411 001. … Petitioners
Versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001
Sunny Thote 7 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
2. Deputy Municipal Commissioner (IMP.)
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Estates)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
4th Floor Annex Building MCGM Head
Office Mahapalika Marg CST, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001
4. Asst. Assessor & Collector, G-South Ward,
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
5. Laxmi Rajkiran Grover
Kaushalaya Bhawan B-25, Sophia School
Road, Vallabh Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan
324 007
6. Satish Anantram Sabhlok
B-85, Vidhani Mountview, Plot No. 68,
Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 703
7. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok
Flat No.1501, 15th floor, Vivaant, Plot No.
04, Sector-19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai
Maharashtra 400 705
8. Ashrafali Ahmed Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai Maharashtra 400 703
9. Vikram Balkishan Sahjwani
Flat no. 51, 5th floor, Mona Lisa, Boman
Petit Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 036
10. Saroj Khanna
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 059
11. Prasanaata Vikram Patwardhan
Office No.1, Sai Pooja CHS, Near Jan
Kalyan Bank, Om Nagar, Andheri East,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 059
12. Sunil Shyamsunder Chandwani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
Sunny Thote 8 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
13. Aanchal Sunil Sadhnani
101, Sudha Building, Corner of the 7th and
12th Road, Near Gayatri Mandir, Khar West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 052
14. Manisha Shrinath Shorey
Flat No.102, Okland Park, CHSL, Yamuna
Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra
400 053
15. Vinod Nandlal Khanna
101, Mathapati Meridean 5th Main, 6th Cross
Near BGFI Club, Malleshpalya Bangalore
North New Thippasandra, Karnataka 560
075
16. Baldev Joginderpal Malhotra
403/4, Citi Corner No. 1, Opp. Vijay Dairy,
Sector 29, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400
703
17. Jitender Anantram Sabhlok
B-603 Swarna Society, Plot No 13 and 14,
Sector 7, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 410 210
18. Harish Jashanmal Khanna
E-6/101, Happy Home Heights, Poonam
Garden, Mira Bhayander, Thane 401 107
19. Shipra Navin Parwani
8, Anand Villa, 4/283, Parwati Bagla
Road, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
208 002
20. Vivek Jairamdas Makhija
403 Sanskruti Apartment, Harish Nagar,
Sikandra Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282 007
21. Pawan Nandlal Khanna
5011 Sobha Palladian, Yemalur
Kariayammana, Agrahara Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560 037
Sunny Thote 9 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
22. Ahsaan Ashrafali Petkar
02, Kanti Cooperative Housing Society,
Plot No 45, Sector 14, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 703
23. Shital Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West)
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 054
24. Punit Inder Khanna
Upvan North Avenue Santacruz (West)
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 054
25. Romir Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A
CHS, 8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar
West, Mumbai - 400 052
26. Hema Khanna
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai – 400 025
27. Shweta Kumar
Flat No. 10, 3rd Floor, Neel Nandini A CHS,
8th Road, Linking Road Corner, Khar West,
Mumbai - 400 052 ….Respondents
****
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rohaan Cama,
Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Mr. Dhawal Mehta, Mr. Abinash Pradhan,
Ms. Garima Agrawal, Mr. Yash Dedhia and Ms. Priyanka Mehta i/b.
Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Joel Carlos,
Ms. Vaishali Ugale for Respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Vaishali Ugale for
Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vaibhav C., Mr. Yash
Sheth, Mr. Dhavall Gandhy i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for the
Applicant in IA No.7191 of 2025.
Ms. Kausar Banatwala i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for the Applicant in
IA No.6720 of 2025.
Sunny Thote 10 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Sandeep Singh for Respondent
Nos.15 to 21 and 25 to 27.
****
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th APRIL, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th MAY, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners are the two surviving partners of
M/s. Khanna Construction House (a dissolved firm), a partnership
firm which was a lessee in the land bearing Plot No.44, Worli Hill
Estate Scheme No.58 bearing C.S. No.903 of Worli Division, G/S
Ward, admeasuring 3718 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Writ Land’).
3. The Petitioners have put forth ten prayers in the
Petition. The relevant prayers (a) to (e), read as under :
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
Sunny Thote 11 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
direction calling for the records and proceedings
culminating into the issuance of the Impugned
Warrant of Attachment dated 10th June, 2024
[Exhibit 'A' hereto and after going through the
legality. validity and propriety thereof, the same
be quashed and set aside.
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction calling for the records and proceedings
culminating into the issuance of the Impugned
Show Cause Notice dated 8th November, 2024
[Exhibit 'B' hereto], Impugned 14th July, 2025
Directions [Exhibit 'C' hereto] and the Impugned
17th July, 2025 Order [Exhibit 'D' hereto] by the
Respondent Nos.1 to 4; and after going through
the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the
same be quashed and set aside.
(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
restore the possession of the said Land (defined in
para. 1 above) to the Petitioners.
(d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
approve and sanction the redevelopment of the
said Land by the Petitioners.
(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
approve and sanction the list of the tenants who
are required to be rehabilitated on the
redevelopment of the said Land by the Petitioners.
Sunny Thote 12 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
ORAL & WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
4. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Dwarkadas has
tendered written notes of submissions in three parts. We summarize
the oral and written submissions of Mr. Dwarkadas, as under :
(a) The partnership firm was incorporated on
01.08.1962. The following six persons were the partners of
the said firm :
1) Saligram Gurdasmal Khanna
2) Jashanmal Saligram Khanna
3) Nandlal Jashanmal Khanna
4) Inder Jashanmal Khanna
5) Balkishan Jiwandas
6) Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani (Petitioner No.1)
(b) The Respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation
entered into a registered lease deed with the firm on
14.07.1965 for a period of 999 years w.e.f. 12.01.1961
(retrospective effect) along with the building standing
thereon, known as Khanna Construction House. Possession
of the land was given on 18.01.1961.
(c) The construction of the building was completed
and a completion certificate was granted by the Corporation
on 28.12.1964, with the following conditions :
Sunny Thote 13 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
i. Agreement to pay all the rent and taxes of the
above land.
ii. To carry out the repair of the premises and to
keep it in a good condition.
iii. Not to colour paint or white wash any
Porebunder stone-work for the time being on the
demised premises.
iv. Any breach of any of the conditions or of the
covenants on the part of the lessee, the Corporation
may re-enter upon the said premises or any part of the
said premises and immediately thereupon all rights of
the lessees hereunder shall be absolutely determined
(terminated/extinguished).
(d) In October1965, Ghanshyam Saligram Khanna
and Shakuntala Balkishan Sahjwani alias Chandni Nanik
Lulla (Petitioner No.2 herein), were admitted in the firm as
partners.
(e) Petitioner No.1, i.e., Nandlal Balkishan Sahjwani
instituted Suit No.1010 of 1973 against the other partners of
Sunny Thote 14 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
the firm in the High Court, praying for dissolution of the
firm and for determination of accounts.
(f) This Court appointed a Court Receiver on
10.10.1973 in respect of the land and the building. The Court
Receiver was put in possession of the land and the building.
Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the City Civil
Court at Bombay on account of enhancement in pecuniary
jurisdiction and was renumbered as Suit No.110318 of 1973.
The suit was decreed on 20/08/2018 and the partnership firm
was dissolved.
(g) The Corporation issued a notice under Section
354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for
short ‘MMC Act’), on 15.06.2018, to the Court
Receiver/Occupants of the said building, classifying the
building as a dangerous dilapidated structure and directing
demolition of the same.
(h) On 20.08.2018, the firm was dissolved by a
decree passed by the City Civil Court with the directions that
the affairs of the said firm be wound up and the Court
Receiver was directed to realize the assets and debts of the
Sunny Thote 15 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
said firm with the shares of the partners to be ascertained.
(i) Ghanshyam Saligram Khanna, a partner in the
firm, preferred First Appeal No.1912 of 2024 (old number -
First Appeal (St) No.31064 of 2018), on 26.10.2018. The
First Appeal was registered on 06.12.2024 and the same is
pending final adjudication.
(j) On 28.08.2020, Respondent No.4, Assistant
Assessor and Collector, G-South Ward issued a letter to the
Court Receiver in respect of the outstanding property tax for
the Writ Land and the building, for an amount of
Rs.3,42,81,922/-.
(k) The Court Receiver filed a report bearing CRR
No.14 of 2021 dated 20.11.2021 in the First Appeal seeking
direction from this Court with respect to the action of
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’) in
appointing a contractor for demolition of the building.
(l) By order dated 09.12.2021 passed by this Court
in CRR No.14 of 2021, the Corporation was directed to be
impleaded as a party in the First Appeal.
Sunny Thote 16 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(m) The tenants of the building filed an Interim
Application (L) No.2775 of 2022 on 29.01.2021, seeking to
intervene in CRR No.14 of 2021. This Court passed an order
on 08.06.2022 on the Interim Application allowing the
tenants to intervene in CRR No.14 of 2021.
(n) In view of the order passed by this Court the
Court Receiver was directed on 07.07.2022, to handover the
possession of the building to the Corporation for carrying
out the demolition. The Petitioners were directed to convey
their decision regarding redevelopment or reconstruction to
the Corporation within a period of six weeks.
(o) The First Appeal Court passed another order on
19.07.2022, clarifying the time given to the MCGM vide
order dated 07.07.2022, as six months.
(p) The Corporation demolished the said building
after all the tenants/occupants vacated their respective
premises, in September-2022.
(q) On 06.01.2023, Petitioner No.1 conveyed to
Respondent No.3 that this Court had ordered on 07.07.2022
Sunny Thote 17 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
that the Corporation should demolish the said building and
had directed the Court Receiver to handover the possession
of the building to the Corporation. In response to the First
Appeal Court recording that the owners of the building may
agree to redevelop, Petitioner No.1 conveyed his willingness
to the Corporation to redevelop the land.
(r) The two Petitioners and the LRs. of the other
partners addressed a letter dated 10.04.2023 to the Court
Receiver highlighting the steps taken by the Petitioners
towards the development and indicating their readiness and
willingness to redevelop the said land. It is canvassed that,
hence, no other developer had the locus to develop the land.
(s) Respondent No.4 informed the Court Receiver on
10.04.2024 that the property tax in respect of the Writ Land
amounting to Rs.9,80,18,624/- as on 31.03.2023, was
outstanding and requested the Court Receiver to pay the said
outstanding amount within 21 days failing which the action
of recovery would be initiated under the provisions of the
MMC Act.
Sunny Thote 18 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(t) The Petitioners intimated the Court Receiver vide
letter dated 10.04.2024 that the property tax ought to be
disbursed by the Court Receiver from the rents/outgoings
paid by the occupants/tenants to the Court Receiver. It was
also contended that the demand for property tax after 2022
was untenable because the building stood demolished in
2022.
(u) Respondent No.4 issued the impugned warrant
of attachment dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 202 and 203
of the MMC Act for the outstanding property tax amount of
Rs.8,39,82,176/- for the period 01.04.1984 to 31.03.2024.
(v) The Petitioners and the LRs. of other partners of
the firm addressed a letter dated 20.06.2024, requesting the
Court Receiver to file his report as regards the attachment
notice issued by the BMC before the F.A. Court and seek
directions thereon.
(w) The Corporation addressed a letter dated
06.11.2024 to the Court Receiver demanding payment of the
outstanding amount including the penalty, totaling
Sunny Thote 19 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Rs.11,04,77,097/- upto 31.03.2025.
(x) Respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner
Estates addressed a letter dated 08.11.2024 to the Advocates
of the Petitioners, intimating that the Petitioners proposal for
redevelopment was rejected for the reason that the said firm
was declared as dissolved and restricted from creating third
party rights in the said property.
(y) Respondent No.2, the Deputy Municipal
Commissioner (IMP) issued the impugned show-cause
notice dated 08.11.2024 to the Petitioners and the LRs. of
other partners, calling upon them to show-cause as to why
the lease deed dated 14.07.1965, should not be terminated on
the grounds set out in the notice.
(z) The Petitioners, through their Advocates
deposited a cheque dated 21.11.2024 for a sum of
Rs.3,71,488/- towards the arrears of lease rent to Respondent
No.3.
(aa) On 22.11.2024, the Petitioners through their
advocates informed Respondent No. 3 that their letter dated
Sunny Thote 20 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
21.11.2024 depositing a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,71,488/-
was refused to be accepted and the same is now being sent
through RPAD.
(bb) Petitioner No. 1 challenged the Rejection of
Proposal dated 08.11.2024, on 28.11.2024, by way of an
Interim Application bearing Interim Application No. 15575
of 2024 filed in the First Appeal.
(cc) On 02.12.2024, Advocates for the Petitioners
replied to the impugned show-cause notice.
(dd) The Administrative Officer (Lease) Estate
Department of MCGM addressed a letter dated 18.12.2024
to the Advocates of the Petitioners thereby refusing to accept
the payment for the lease rental sought to be paid under
letter dated 21.11.2024 for reasons set out in the letter .
(ee) On 24.12.2024, the Petitioners replied to the
letter dated 18.12.2024 through their Advocates and stated
that the Petitioners are the two original partners of the said
firm. Further, Respondent No.1 is a party to the proceedings
of First Appeal wherein the LRs. of deceased partners have
Sunny Thote 21 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
been brought on record. The Petitioners therein once again
sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,71,488/-.
(ff) The FA Court passed an order dated 08.01.2025
in Interim Application No. 15575 of 2024 filed in First
Appeal, recording that the Corporation has intimated that the
applicant lease will be terminated as the entire proposal has
not been submitted within the period prescribed (six months)
by this court in order dated 07.07.2022. The Applicant
submitted that the proposal have been submitted to the office
of the Court Receiver and a common proposal will be
submitted before this court within a period of three weeks
from the date of this order. Accordingly, the FA Court
observed that no coercive steps should be taken in
furtherance to the impugned show-cause notice till the next
date.
(gg) The Petitioners along with Respondent Nos.5 to
11 and Respondent Nos. 22 to 24, signed declaration dated
28.01.2025 conveying their intention to redevelop the said
Land and the same was filed before the FA Court.
Sunny Thote 22 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(hh) The Petitioners, through their Advocates,
addressed a letter dated 27.02.2025 to the Administrative
Officer (Lease) Estate Department of MCGM, calling upon
the officer to accept the payment of lease rentals.
(ii) Petitioner No.1 filed an affidavit dated
13.03.2025 in the Interim Application No. 15575 of 2024
before the FA Court reiterating its readiness and willingness
to redevelop the said Land.
(jj) Petitioner No.1 filed an Interim Application (St.)
No. 12546 of 2025 dated 03.04.2025 in the First Appeal,
inter alia, seeking directions to the Court Receiver to
disclose the statement of accounts and to utilize the funds
that have matured pursuant to the Fixed Deposits and pay
the concerned departments towards property tax.
(kk) On 17.03.2025, the Court Receiver filed a Report
bearing CRR No. 15 of 2025, in the First Appeal.
(ll) On 03.04.2025, Petitioner No.1 filed another
Interim Application (St.) No. 12547 of 2025 dated
15.03.2025 in the First Appeal, inter alia, seeking directions
Sunny Thote 23 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
for handover of possession of the said Land to the Court
Receiver. The said Interim Application is pending
adjudication.
(mm) On 22.04.2025, Respondent No.3 addressed a
letter to the advocate of the Petitioners reiterating that the
payment of the lease rental cannot be accepted on the ground
that the said Firm has been dissolved and the matter is sub
judice before this Court.
(nn) The FA Court passed an order dated 09.06.2025
in First Appeal with CRR No. 13 of 2025 and other Interim
Applications thereby summarily discharging the Court
Receiver without passing the accounts, vacating the stay on
the impugned Show Cause Notice and directing that any
partner party/ occupant/ tenant can submit a proposal of
redevelopment and MCGM shall consider the said proposal
and decide on its merit.
(oo) Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.5 to 9
challenged the order of FA Court dated 09.06.2025, in SLP
(C) No. 17680 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The said SLP is dismissed on 25.08.2025.
Sunny Thote 24 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(pp) On 27.06.2025, a hearing was conducted by
Respondent No.1 regarding the impugned show-cause
notice.
(qq) Respondent No.2 passed the speaking order dated
14.07.2025 concluding that the impugned show-cause notice
dated 08.11.2024 is justified and directed Respondent No.3
to initiate the process for the termination of the Lease dated
14.07.1995.
(rr) Petitioner No.1 issued a letter dated 17.07.2025
to Respondent No.2 tendering two demand drafts of
Rs.11,04,77,097/- and Rs. 3,71,488/- in favour of Asst.
Assessor & Collector G/South Ward BMC (Respondent
No.4) and Asst. Commissioner (Estate) BMC (Respondent
No.3) respectively. The Petitioner also requested thereby to
revoke the impugned speaking order dated 14.07.2025 and
to not take steps in furtherance thereof.
(ss) The Respondent No.3 issued the impugned order
dated 17.07.2025, thereby terminating the Lease dated
14.07.1995.
Sunny Thote 25 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(tt) The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order
dated 25.08.2025 dismissing the SLP (Civil) No. 17680 of
2025.
(uu) The City Civil Court passed an order dated
06.01.2015 in Suit No. 10318 of 1973, thereby observing
that the rental income from tenants/occupants of the said
building will not be sufficient for the dues payable and
directed Petitioner No.1 to pay costs charges and expenses to
the Court Receiver.
(vv) On 17.07.2025, the Corporation addressed a
letter to Petitioner No. 1 thereby returning the demand drafts
submitted by the Petitioner on the following grounds (as
stated on affidavit):
1. The payments were made only after the
passing of the Speaking Order dated 14.07.2025
and at the very threshold of termination, such
belated payments cannot cure the defaults or
invalidate proceedings lawfully conducted by the
Respondents.
2. Demand Drafts submitted by the
Petitioners were not drawn in the proper name of
the Respondent Corporation, but in the name of
individual officer designation, and therefore
could not be deposited or encashed.
Sunny Thote 26 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4
5. The oral and written submissions of Respondent nos.1
to 4 (Corporation authorities), advanced by the learned Senior
Advocates Mr. Aspi Chinoy and Mr. Godbole, are summarised as
under :-
(a) Insofar as the factual details as regards the two
Petitioners, their partnership firm, the lease of 999 years, the
dispute inter se the partners, the dissolution of the
partnership firm etc., are undisputed. The date of submission
of the willingness to develop, is disputed on the ground that
the Petitioners belatedly tendered a back-dated letter
06.01.2023 to the Corporation on 17.01.2023.
(b) This Court appointed a Court Receiver for the
Writ Land and building in 1973. Due to pecuniary
jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to the City Civil
Court in 2012.
(c) The dissolution of the partnership firm by
Judgment and degree dated 20.08.2018 before the City Civil
Court, is undisputed.
Sunny Thote 27 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(d) The Court Receiver was directed to realize and
distribute the assets amongst the Petitioners.
(e) One of the partners Mr. Ghanshyam Khanna had
challenged the preliminary decree.
(f) The MCGM had issued the notice dated
15.06.2018 under Section 354 of the MMC Act directing
demolition of the building being in a dilapidated and
dangerous condition.
(g) The Court Receiver received a notice dated
28.08.2020 in respect of the outstanding property tax dues
amounting to Rs.3,42,81,922/-.
(h) By order dated 07.07.2022, the First Appeal
Court recorded that the building was unfit for habitation and
all the tenants had already vacated their premises.
(i) The First Appeal Court ordered the demolition of
the building and granted liberty to the owners to
redevelop/reconstruct the building by conveying their
decision to the Corporation within six weeks.
Sunny Thote 28 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(j) The Corporation demolished the building in the
month of September 2022.
(k) Some of the partners/their legal heirs addressed a
back-dated letter dated 07.01.2023 to the Corporation
agreeing to develop the building, by serving it on the
Corporation on 17.01.2023.
(l) In January and March, 2023, the Corporation
received letter from Avighna Group which stated that they
had the support of 24% of the partners and were willing to
undertake the redevelopment of the building.
(m) On 22.05.2023, the Avighna Group addressed a
letter to the Court Receiver reiterating their willingness to
undertake the redevelopment and also forwarded the letter to
the Advocates of some of the partners/legal heirs.
(n) A letter dated 06.06.2023 was addressed by the
Advocates to the Court Receiver and the MCGM stating that
they represented 87% of the partners and a fresh lease
should be granted to them to enable them to carry out the
redevelopment.
Sunny Thote 29 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(o) By letter dated 10.04.2024, the MCGM had
informed the Court Receiver that the arrears of property
taxes from 2008 had aggregated to Rs.8,39,82,176/-.
(p) By letter dated 08.05.2024, the said Advocates
disputed the demand for property taxes.
(q) In these circumstances the MCGM issued a
Notice dated 10.06.2024 attaching the property for arrears of
property taxes.
(r) By a letter dated 06.11.2024, the MCGM
informed the Court Receiver that the arrears of property
taxes had increased to Rs.11,04,77,097/-.
(s) By a letter dated 08.11.2024, the MCGM
informed the said Advocate of some of the partners/ legal
heirs that their proposal for redevelopment was rejected as it
was not made by all the partners/ legal heirs and was also
not supported by 51% tenants.
(t) In view of the failure of the partners/ heirs of
deceased partners [i.e. 100%], to collectively submit a
Sunny Thote 30 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Redevelopment Proposal supported by 51% of the tenants,
the MCGM acting in pursuance of the order dated
07.07.2022 passed by the Single Judge, and having regard to
the need to enable redevelopment for the tenants, issued a
Notice dated 08.11.2024 requiring the Partners and legal
heirs of partners to show cause as to why the lease should
not be terminated.
(u) A few of the partners / legal heirs of partners
filed an Interim Application No.15575 of 2024 in the said
First Appeal stating that they would “submit a common
proposal before the Court within a period of three weeks
from today as regards the redevelopment of the subject
property”. On this basis, this Hon’ble Court, by its order
dated 08.01.2025, adjourned the matter for three weeks and
directed that till then no coercive steps should be taken.
(v) The same group of partners / legal heirs
submitted to the MCGM declarations regarding their
willingness to undertake redevelopment. However these
declarations were not made collectively by all the partners
Sunny Thote 31 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
and were also not supported by 51% of the tenants.
(w) By an order dated 09.06.2025 passed in the First
Appeal proceedings, the learned Single Judge of this Court
held that :
i. despite the Court having given the partners two
opportunities to redevelop the property, they had
failed to take collective steps to redevelop the said
property and had accordingly not complied with
the orders of the Court dated 7th July, 2022 and
8th January, 2025.
ii. that the tenants occupants of the building
whose interests were of paramount importance
have been out of their premises for seven years.
iii. that the firm / partners have not paid the
property tax of the suit property which runs in
crores of rupees. In spite of a warrant of
attachment of suit property being issued by the
MCGM, no partners have deposited the said tax
(iii) The Court accordingly discharged the Court
Receiver and also vacated the order dated 8 th
January, 2025 which had directed that no coercive
steps should be taken.
The relevant paragraph no.12 of the said order
provided :
12. It shows that two orders of this Court dt
7.7.2022 and 8.1.2025 have not been complied by
the partners/ parties. The tenants/occupants of the
suit property are out of their so while deciding
premises for more than seven years... the issue in
present appeal, this Court cannot deprive the
rights of occupants/tenants of the suit property
who are out of their premises for more than seven
Sunny Thote 32 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
years. The interest of the occupants / tenants is of
para mount importance. As observed earlier, the
partners of the dissolved firm have not taken
collective efforts to redevelop the property as
directed by this Court in the year 2022 and in Jan
2025 ..In my view, to protect the interest of the
partners, this Court has given two opportunities to
the partners to redevelop the suit property but it
has not been complied. Moreover, there is no stay
to the order of City Civil Court and as per
direction of City Civil Court, all partners were
directed to give account of partnership to the
Court Receiver but they failed to give accounts of
partnership firm. They have not paid the property
tax of the suit property which runs in crores of
rupees. A warrant of attachment of suit property
was issued by the MCGM due to non payment of
property tax. In spite of aware of this fact, no
partners have deposited the said tax and even they
have not claimed partnership record from
MCGM. It shows their reluctance in partnership
firm. It appears that the partners only want to
claim share in suit property but do not want to
follow the orders of this Court. They have
avoided the responsibility of paying taxes and
redevelopment of the suit property. It appears that
there is internal dispute between them. The
possession of suit property is given to the MCGM
as per order of this Court. The said order has not
been challenged. The MCGM wants to redevelop
the suit property as per procedure of law and to
protect the rights of occupants / tenants as
directed by this Court. Accordingly, termination
of lease notice is issued. As discussed above, suit
property is no longer in possession of the Court
Receiver. All records pertaining to the suit
partnership firm is with MCGM hence the Court
Receiver cannot be continued with the suit
property. It is contention of learned Senior
Counsel for MCGM that interim order passed by
this Court to termination of lease notice is causing
Sunny Thote 33 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
prejudice to the MCGM. As observed earlier, the
applicant in said application has not submitted
redevelopment proposal within three weeks as
assured to this Court hence interim relief granted
by this Court cannot be continued. Moreover, in
termination of lease notice 15 days time is given
to the parties to submit the say, without
submitting the say the applicant has approached
this Court. The concerned parties can file reply to
it, if direction is given to MCGM to consider say
and submission made by concerned parties and
take action on above notice would suffice.
Considering above reasons, I pass following
order :
ORDER
i. The Court Receiver appointed by this Court is
discharged without passing of accounts and upon
payment of costs, charges and expenses. All
available records if any, with Court Receiver
regarding the suit property be handed over to
MCGM within two weeks.
ii. The Court Receiver's Report is allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d). The
claims raised by the four workmen through Union
are allowed and Court Receiver is directed to
disburse the amount to the workmen from the
amounts lying in the suit account. Thereafter, the
balance amount, if any, in the suit account be
deposited before this Court. The Court Receiver
Report No. 13 of 2025 stands disposed of.
iii. The direction given by this Court to MCGM
dated 08.01.2025, no coercive steps in respect of
suit property be taken is vacated and I.A. No.
15575 of 2024 is disposed off.
iv. If any partner/party/occupants / tenants
including current tenants / occupants submit a
proposal of redevelopment including the parties
Sunny Thote 34 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
who had earlier submitted proposal in respect of
redevelopment of the suit property, the MCGM
shall consider the said proposals and decide on its
own merit as per procedure of law. The MCGM
shall consider the list of occupants/tenants
prepared by the Court Receiver and MCGM and
current occupants / tenants and decide their claims
on its own merit and inform them accordingly.
(x) On 27.06.2025, a hearing was conducted by the
MCGM. Thereafter, by a detailed speaking order dated
14.07.2025, the Corporation came to a conclusion that the
show cause notice dated 08.11.2024 is justified and directed
Respondent No.3 to initiate the process for termination of
the lease deed.
(y) The Order notes that :
The proposals received from North Star Homes P
Ltd submitted by partners legal heirs having 22.86% shares
and the Proposal submitted by the said Advocates supported
by 80% of the partners / legal heirs, had both been refused
by the Corporation vide its letters dated 08.11.2024 as they
were not submitted by all [100%] of the partners / legal heirs
of partners.
That, there appeared to be a dispute between the
partners/legal heirs of partners regarding the proposed
redevelopment of the property and that consequently they
were unable to submit a collective proposal [by all the
partners/ legal heirs of partners] for redevelopment,
Sunny Thote 35 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Accordingly despite repeated opportunities being
given no proposal for redevelopment had been received from
all the partners / legal heirs of the partners.
The Hon’ble Court's order dated 09.06.2025 had
in fact held that “As observed earlier, the partners of the
dissolved firm have not taken collective efforts to redevelop
the property as directed by this Court in the year 2022 and in
Jan 2025. In my view, to protect the interest of the partners,
this Court has given two opportunities to the partners to
redevelop the suit property but it has not been complied.
Arrears of property taxes from 2008 amounting
to Rs.8,39,82,176/- had remained outstanding and the
Corporation had issued warrant of attachment under Section
206.
That the Hon’ble Court's order dated 09.06.2025
had provided that “this Court cannot deprive the rights of
occupants/tenants of the suit property who are out of their
premises for more than seven years. The interest of the
occupants/tenants is of paramount importance.”
By not maintaining / repairing the building
[resulting in it being required to be demolished by the
Corporation under the orders if the Hon’ble Court] and by
not paying lease rentals and property taxes, the lessees had
committed breaches of the Lease Deed.
The Corporation was accordingly required to
move forward to secure the interest of the tenants/ occupants
as had been provided in the Court's order dated 09.06.2025.
That the corporation was entitled to evict the
lessee under Section 105(B), but in the present case no
eviction was required as the property was already in
possession of the Corporation under the Court’s orders.
Accordingly the order directs the Assistant
Commissioner Estates to initiate the process for termination
of the lease granted by the Lease Deed dated 14.07.1965.
Sunny Thote 36 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(z) Pursuant to the order dated 14.07.2025, the
Assistant Commissioner, Estates, by his order dated
14.07.2025, terminated the lease granted by the Lease Deed
dated 14.07.1965.
(aa) On 17.07.2025, Petitioner No.1 for the first time
tendered a demand draft for Rs.11,04,77,097/- for the arrears
of property taxes from 2008.
(bb) It is submitted that in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the Petitioners’ allegation that the warrant of
attachment, the Show Cause Notice, the order dated
14.07.2025 and the order dated 17.07.2025, are bad, are
unsustainable.
Mr. Chinoy has further countered the Petitioners
grounds as under :
(cc) Are contrary to the provisions of law, arbitrary
and unreasonable and without application of mind.
(dd) That the Petitioners had paid Rs.11,04,77,097/-
only after the termination of the lease deed.
Sunny Thote 37 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(ee) That the Petitioners were in breach of the order
dated 07.07.2022 as they had made a proposal for
redevelopment belatedly beyond the time-line granted by the
Single Judge and the Corporations rejection thereof on the
ground that it was not made by all partners/ heirs of partners,
was appropriate in law.
(ff) That reliance on the order dated 07.07.2022 to
initiate termination of the lease was correct and appropriate.
(gg) That Respondent Nos.1 to 4's conclusion that the
lessees had not conducted timely repairs of the building was
based on material / evidence and was supported by the fact
that the Building had been declared structurally dangerous
and required to be demolished.
(hh) Regarding the Petitioners allegation that the
Corporations acts of issuing the orders for termination of the
lease, are arbitrary, unreasonable as the Petitioners had
complied with the order dated 07.07.2022 and had submitted
a proposal for redevelopment, the Corporation submits that:
(i) The order of this Honble Court dated
Sunny Thote 38 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
07.07.2022 had clearly provided that “If the all
owners fail to take the decision to
redevelop/reconstruct the building within a
period of six weeks, the Corporation shall be at
liberty to take over the land from the owners by
protecting the rights of the tenants/occupants.”
This direction was disobeyed.
(ii) The Petitioners have not challenged the said
order dated 07.07.2022 and the same has
become final and binding. The Petitioners,
therefore, cannot be heard to contend that the
Corporation could not act on the same to
terminate the lease.
(iii) The petitioners had admittedly not
submitted a collective proposal for
redevelopment supported by all the partners
/legal heirs of the deceased partners and the
Corporation, therefore, could not have accepted
such a Proposal.
Sunny Thote 39 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(iv) This Court has, by its order dated
09.06.2025, held that despite the Court having
given the partners two opportunities to
redevelop the property, they had failed to take
collective steps to redevelop the said property
and that they had accordingly not complied with
the orders of the Court dated 07.07.2022 and
08.01.2025.
(v) The Petitioners cannot be heard to contend
that the Corporation could not have rejected
their Proposal for redevelopment as it was not a
collective proposal made by all the partners/
heirs of the deceased partners, and that they had
complied with the orders dated 07.07.2022 and
07.01.2025.
(ii) In fact, the said partnership firm having been
dissolved, it is a matter of law that a dissolved partnership
firm cannot undertake the redevelopment of the demolished
building and it was only in view of the Honble Court’s order
Sunny Thote 40 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
dated 07.07.2022, that the Corporation was willing to accept
a collective Proposal for redevelopment, if made by all the
partners/ heirs of deceased partners.
(jj) Since the Partners/ heirs of deceased partners
failed to submit a collective proposal for redevelopment, the
Corporation was necessarily required to proceed further to
take over the land/terminate the lease to protect the interest
of the tenants occupants who had been out of their premises
since 2018 [for the past seven years] and who otherwise did
not have any prospect of being rehabilitated by re-
development of the demolished building.
(kk) In these circumstances, the Corporation was
required to take steps for termination of the lease, as per the
leave granted by the Court.
(ll) It is submitted that the Petition should not be
entertained as it will otherwise prevent the timely
rehabilitation of the tenants/occupants who have already
been out of their premises for 7 years.
Sunny Thote 41 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(mm) The Petitioners’ apparent/evident failure to maintain
and keep the building in good condition, is ex facie evident
from the fact that the Corporation had issued a Section 354
Notice and that the Corporation was required to demolish the
building pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated
07.07.2022.
(nn) That property taxes had remained unpaid from 2008,
resulting in the Corporation issuing the Warrant of
Attachment. After termination of the lease, the Petitioners
tried to create a make-believe picture that the taxes are being
paid.
(oo) Even during the hearing before the Deputy
Municipal Commissioner on 27.06.2025 [as recorded in the
order dated 14.07.2025], the Petitioners had not paid /
offered to pay the property taxes of Rs.11,04,77,097/- [due
from 2008] and had alleged that the same was “excessive,
unlawful and unreasonable”.
(pp) Only after the order dated 14.07.2025 directing
the termination of the lease, did the Petitioners deposit the
Sunny Thote 42 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
amount of Rs.11,04,77,097/- on 17.07.2025.
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE SOCIETY
6. Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Senior Advocate has
tendered his oral and written submissions on behalf of the Applicant
Khanna Construction House Commercial Premises Co-operative
Housing Society (the Society), as under :
(a) The sequence of dates and events have not been
disputed. If the terms and conditions of the lease agreement
are breached, termination of the lease cannot be arbitrary.
The Petitioners have failed in the payment of taxes from
2008 onwards.
(b) After the partnership firm was dissolved, the
learned Single Judge in the order dated 07.07.2022 (Stamp
No.31064 of 2018) in the First Appeal, recorded in the last
Paragraph No.5 that the owners of the building should agree
to reconstruct/redevelop the building and should convey
their decision within a period of six months to the
Corporation. If they fail to do so within six months, the
Sunny Thote 43 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Corporation shall be at liberty to take over the land from the
owners, by protecting the rights of the tenants/occupants. Dr.
Saraf contends that since this was done by the Corporation
in the backdrop of the breach of the lease agreement by the
Petitioners, the termination of the lease cannot be branded as
being arbitrary.
(c) The Judgment dated 09.06.2025 delivered by the
learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 1912/2024, has
dealt with the said issue and it is concluded that the breach is
established.
(d) The partners of the dissolved firm are divided in
two factions. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 to 14
and 22 to 24 are claiming 91.91% rights in the subject
property. They have on 06.01.2023 submitted a proposal for
redevelopment. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 15 to
21 and 25 to 27 are claiming 24.61% rights and opposing the
Petition stating that no rights survive and no liabilities
(through self-redevelopment) can be created by virtue of
dissolution of the firm.
Sunny Thote 44 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(e) One North Star Homes Private Limited (Avighna
Group) has also submitted a proposal for redevelopment of
the subject property on 05.01.2023 along with a letter dated
04.01.2023 by legal heirs of few partners of the firm
claiming to have 22.86% entitlement of the leasehold
property.
(f) Other proposals were also received from K
Raheja Realty Group and Suvidha Group.
(g) The BMC on 08.11.2024, rejected all the
proposals inter alia on the ground that the proposals are not
backed by 51% consent of the tenants. As regards the
proposal submitted by the erstwhile partners of the said firm,
these were also rejected on the ground that the same was not
submitted by all 100% of the members of the partnership
firm.
(h) On 08.11.2024, the BMC issued a show-cause
notice to the partners and legal heirs of few partners for
termination of the lease.
Sunny Thote 45 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(i) On 09.06.2025, the High Court passed an order
noting that the building had been demolished and the
tenants/occupants had not been rehabilitated as a result of
which the tenants are out of their premises. The Court
noticed that the partners of the firm had not taken collective
efforts to redevelop the property despite being given two
opportunities. Discharging the receiver, the High Court
observed that the redevelopment ought to be carried out and
the rights of the tenants/occupants ought to be protected.
(j) On 14.07.2025, read with letter dated
17.07.2025, the BMC terminated the lease.
(k) In Court Receiver filed Report No. 13 of 2025
seeking discharge, the High Court heard the tenants. By an
order dated 09.06.2025, the Bombay High Court noticed
various defaults on the part of the lessees to collectively take
steps to redevelop the building. The Court discharged the
Court Receiver. In this order as well, the Court observed that
the rights of the occupants/tenants of the suit property cannot
be deprived. Even at this stage, the tenants were before the
Court.
Sunny Thote 46 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(l) In the present petition, some of the partners of
the partnership seek to challenge the termination of the lease
by MCGM. As a result of the defaults on the part of the
lessees/such partners, the tenants are prejudicially affected
and therefore, the Applicant Society of Tenants is entitled to
be impleaded and be heard in the present Petition.
(m) It is apparent from the said orders that the rights
of tenants/occupants have been recognized by this Hon’ble
Court in these orders. Accordingly, the Applicants ought to
be impleaded as parties in the present Writ Petition as they
are proper and necessary parties for the adjudication of the
dispute in the present petition.
(n) It is evident that the Petitioners are concerned
solely with the monetary value of the underlying land,
whereas the members of the Applicant proposed society
comprise long-standing tenants and occupants whose very
livelihood depend on the timely redevelopment of the
demolished property. The displacement for several years,
coupled with the Petitioner's continued obstructions,
underscores that the real and immediate prejudice is suffered
Sunny Thote 47 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
by the tenants, not the Petitioners who are engaged in
disputes purely over financial entitlement for over 52 years.
(o) The Petitioner does not have locus to file the
present Petition for the following reasons:
(i) On 20.08.2018, the City Civil Court
passed a decree for the dissolution of the said
Firm. Though there is a First Appeal, the decree
of dissolution has not been stayed.
(ii) In any event, without prejudice to the said
contention, it is submitted that the Petitioners
can never represent the 100% of the partners of
the partnership firm.
(iii) Section 47 of the Partnership Act deals
with acts which the partners can do after
dissolution of the firm. The same is reproduced
herein below for the sake of Convenience.
‘47. Continuing authority of partners
for purposes of winding up. After the
dissolution of a firm the authority of each
partner to bind the firm, and the other
mutual rights and obligations of the
Sunny Thote 48 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
partners, continue notwithstanding the
dissolution, so far as may be necessary to
wind up the affairs of the firm and to
complete transactions begun but
unfinished at the time of the dissolution,
but not otherwise:
Provided that the firm is in no case
bound by the acts of a partner who has
been adjudicated insolvent; but this
proviso does not affect the liability of any
person who has after the adjudication
represented himself or knowingly
permitted himself to be represented as a
partner of the insolvent.
(p) It is apparent from a bare perusal of the said
Section that the partners are not permitted to create any fresh
liabilities and execute new transactions. The acts if any are
for the purpose of winding up of the affairs of the firm.
(Please see Saligram Ruplal Khanna and Anr. Vs. Kanwar
Rajnath- (1974) 2 SCC 642.
(q) The firm having been dissolved, it is not open to
any partners to undertake business, afresh. The
redevelopment of the building is clearly in the nature of a
fresh business being undertaken by the partnership firm.
Sans such redevelopment, the firm cannot hold on to the
Sunny Thote 49 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
property of MCGM in circumstances where the tenants are
also out of their premises.
(r) The termination of the lease by the MCGM is
justified since the Petitioner is in breach of the covenants of
the lease deed.
(s) The Lease Deed casts an obligation on the lessee
in Clauses 6 and 7 for maintenance and upkeep of the
building. As per Clause 1 of the lease deed, all rents, taxes
and charges were required to be paid by the lessee. The lease
deed could be terminated and the land could be resumed in
the event there was a breach of any of the covenant of the
lease.
(t) The said firm and its partners had stopped paying
lease rent since 1998. The lease rent of Rs.3,71,488/- was
pending payment since 30.06.1998.
(u) In 2019, due to the lack of maintenance and
upkeep of the building, it became ruinous and dilapidated.
The members of the Applicant had to vacate the building.
Sunny Thote 50 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
(v) Further, it appears the that said firm and its
partners had failed to pay property tax to the MCGM. The
MCGM on 28.08.2020 addressed a notice to the Court
Receiver calling upon him to pay property tax to the tune of
Rs.3,42,81,992/-.
(w) In September 2022, the building was demolished
pursuant to the permission/order dated 07.07.2022 passed
by the High Court.
(x) The Court Receiver had not paid the arrears of
Property Tax. The MCGM on 10.04.2024 had once again
addressed a notice to the Court Receiver for payment of
property tax to the tune of Rs.9,80,18,624/-. Another demand
notice was addressed by the MCGM on 06.11.2024 for an
amount of Rs. 11,04,77,097/-.
(y) There was a gross failure on part of the said firm
and its partners in maintaining the building and paying the
property tax dues as contemplated in the lease deed. Further,
the lease rent remained unpaid since 30.06.1998.
Furthermore, since the partnership firm was dissolved, the
Sunny Thote 51 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Petitioner did not have any legal right, title or interest in the
said property. Considering these factors, the MCGM rightly
addressed a show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024 to the
erstwhile partners of the firm for termination of the lease.
(z) There is no explanation forthcoming from the
Petitioners regarding the non-payment of rents and property
tax when demanded. The only explanation now furnished is
that the property tax has been deposited after the termination
of the lease and it is a curable defect. There is no explanation
regarding the aspect of dissolution of the firm, the non
payment of rent and the non payment of property tax at the
relevant time. The termination of the lease is, therefore,
rightful. The Petitioners now seeks to usurp the said land
which they are not entitled to. The said firm being dissolved,
the lease cannot be continued.
(aa) Further, the said Firm was dissolved pursuant to
a Preliminary Decree dated 20 August, 2018. The said
dissolution was sought by Petitioner No.1 himself by filing a
Suit for the same. Although only one of the partners of the
dissolved Firm has preferred a First Appeal, against the said
Sunny Thote 52 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Preliminary Decree, who has now passed away and is being
represented by his legal heirs, the Petitioners are contesting
the said First Appeal, and no stay of operation or effect of
the said Preliminary Decree has been granted by this Court
till date. Any unanimous consent or joint redevelopment
proposal by the Petitioners, irrespective of the percent share
claimed to be represented, is impossible owing to the 50+
years long pending dispute and the conduct of the parties.
Thus, there can be no continuation of lease, if at all.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE TENANTS
7. Mr. Khandeparkar has not disputed the dates and
sequence of events. In his submissions, he contends that it was
Petitioner No.1 who had instituted a Suit No.1010 of 1973 on
account of disputes inter se amongst the partners. Undisputedly, the
partnership firm was dissolved by a decree on 20.08.2018 passed by
the City Civil Court. The partnership was dissolved at the behest of
Petitioner No.1. Subsequently, M/s. Ghanshyam Saligram Khanna
another partner of the dissolved partnership firm, now deceased and
represented by his heirs, including Respondent Nos.16 and 17, filed
First Appeal No.1912 of 2024 (Stamp No.31064 of 2018) before the
Sunny Thote 53 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
Single Judge Bench.
8. By order dated 07.07.2022 r/w 19.07.2022, the
Corporation was directed to demolish the building since the partners
had disregarded and ignored the building leading it to it’s
dilapidated condition and categorized as C-1. Six months time was
granted by the Single Judge for the Appellants/Partners and the heirs
of the deceased partners to convey their decision for redevelopment
within six months. The Petitioners prepared a back-dated letter
dated 06.01.2023, which was served upon the Corporation on
17.01.2023, beyond the six months timeline, expressing their
willingness to redevelop the building themselves. This was after the
six months timeline granted by the Single Judge. Consequentially,
the Corporation got the right under the directions of the Single
Judge to takeover the land from the owners by protecting the rights
of the tenants/occupants.
9. In the backdrop of several violations of the lease
conditions, the Petitioners challenged the show-cause notice dated
08.11.2024 issued by the Corporation and the letter dated
08.11.2024 (Exhibit ‘Q’-Page 218), issued by the Corporation
Sunny Thote 54 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
rejecting the proposal, by filing an Interim Application in the First
Appeal. By order dated 08.01.2025, the Single Judge recorded the
statement of Petitioner No.1 that a common proposal would be
submitted within a period of three weeks for redevelopment of the
property. Therefore, the Single Judge directed that no coercive steps
would be taken till the next date. By order dated 09.06.2025, passed
in the First Appeal, the Court discharged the Court Receiver.
10. The tenants who are Respondent Nos.15 to 21 and 25 to
27, claim to be entitled to 24.61% share in the dissolved partnership
firm. With regard to the dispute of percentage and share of interest
which is a disputed question of fact, the Writ Jurisdiction of this
Court should not be invoked and the Petitioners should be relegated
to the appropriate Civil Court.
11. The Petitioners are not the owners of the property
which is a partnership asset. They cannot claim a right to maintain a
proceeding impugning the orders passed by the Corporation with
regard to the partnership assets or seek reliefs in connection with the
possession and redevelopment without the consent of the tenants.
Once an asset is brought into a common hotch-pot of the firm, it
Sunny Thote 55 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
would cease to be the trading asset of the person who brought it in.
Consequently, it would be a trading asset of the partnership in which
all partners would have interest (read Sachin Jaiswal V/s. Hotel Alka
Raje & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 446).
12. It is further canvassed that after the partnership firm is
dissolved, no new venture can be taken up by the partnership firm
and the affairs are restricted to winding up and complete the
transaction which remained unfinished at the time of dissolution in
view of Section 47 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
13. The rights and obligations of the partners do not extend
to taking up new ventures which would create new set of rights and
obligations beyond those created at the time of dissolution. On
dissolution, every partner is entitled to have the property of the firm
after payment of debts and have the surplus distributed amongst
themselves. The firm or a partner individually cannot redevelop any
property without the consent of the other partners. No new rights or
liabilities can be created in connection with the properties of the
partnership firm qua third parties (including the tenants/occupants),
in view of the objections by the Respondents before us. The firm in
Sunny Thote 56 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
a dissolved state, cannot be represented by a section of the partners
who exclude others, particularly when the existence of rights of the
heirs of the original partners are not disputed.
14. The Petitioners and these Respondents are not together,
is the argument of the Respondents. The two Petitioners cannot
espouse the cause of the other partners, i.e., these Respondents. The
Petitioners cannot set up a case on behalf of the partnership firm
without the consent of these Respondents. The redevelopment of the
building and the land cannot be undertaken without the 100%
consent of the partners/legal heirs of the dissolved firm. The
redevelopment is not possible until the shares and entitlement of
each partner/heirs in the partnership is conclusively determined. The
two Petitioners cannot unilaterally seek to proceed with the
redevelopment without the concurrence of these Respondents. Until
the inter-se disputes are adjudicated upon in the First Appeal and the
pending Interim Application, and until the shares are conclusively
determined, any attempt to redevelop the property would lead to
multiplicity of litigation.
Sunny Thote 57 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
15. We have deeply considered the entire oral as well as
the written submissions of the parties. The salient features of their
submissions are summarised in the foregoing paragraphs.
16. We have perused the show-cause notice dated
08.11.2024 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner. He has
noted that the partners of M/s. Khanna Construction House had
received the plot/parcel of land on a lease for 999 years from
12.01.1961. A building was constructed on the said lease land.
Proceedings were initiated by some of the partners seeking
dissolution of the partnership firm. In the said suit, the City Civil
Court delivered a Judgment on 20.08.2018 and dissolved the
partnership firm from the date of the order.
17. The affairs of the partnership firm were wound up and
the Court Receiver, appointed by the Bombay High Court, was
directed to realise its assets, the debts and its accounts be taken and
the shares of each partner be ascertained after deducting taxes
including municipal taxes, property taxes, fee of Court Receiver and
other charges. The Court Receiver was directed to take all accounts
Sunny Thote 58 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
from the parties and after receiving the same, to file the Suit for
ejectment, recovery of rent and compensation from the occupants of
the partnership firm. It was also recorded that the proposal to
develop the property was delivered to the Assistant Commissioner
pursuant to the order of the Single Judge dated 07.07.2022, on
17.01.2023, after the expiry of six months. The Corporation acted in
terms of the order of the High Court and rejected the time barred
proposal on 08.11.2024.
18. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the show-cause
notice was issued and a hearing was conducted on 27.06.2025. The
entire submissions of the disputing parties were considered
extensively by the concerned authority and an extensive order
running into 19 pages was passed, which is impugned in this
Petition. The show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024 was held to have
been justifiable issued. A direction was issued to initiate the process
for the termination of the lease deed dated 14.07.1965. It is in this
backdrop that the lease deed/agreement was terminated.
19. We have perused the lease deed dated 14.07.1965,
wherein it is recorded that the possession of the plot was granted by
Sunny Thote 59 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
the Corporation on 12.01.1961. The terms and conditions have been
elaborately set out in the lease deed. Specific conditions with regard
to the repairs of the building, maintenance of the Porebunder stone-
work, external painting colours and the means to maintain the
building, have also been set out. The termination clause for breach
of any of the conditions is also specifically incorporated and which
indicates that if there is any breach of any of the conditions, the
Corporation may re-enter upon the said premises and absolutely
determine the rights of the lessee.
20. In the Judgment of the City Civil Court dated
20.08.2018, the following order was passed :
“1. Suit is decreed on admission.
2. The partnership firm ‘M/s. Khanna
Construction House’ is declared dissolved with
effect from the date of order.
3. The affairs of the partnership firm ‘M/s.
Khanna Construction House’ be wound up and Court
Receiver, appointed by Hon. Bombay High Court, is
directed to realize its assets, debts paid and its
accounts be taken and the share coming to each of
partners of firm be ascertained and paid over after
their liability ascertained as per their shares after
deducting the taxes including municipal taxes,
property taxes and other charges etc. including fee of
Court Receiver.
Sunny Thote 60 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
4. Plaintiff and original defendants have following
shares in the partnership properties assets and
profits,
Plaintiff 9%
Original defendant No.1 22%
Original defendant No.2 14%
Original defendant No.3 9%
defendant No.4 9%
defendant No.5 9%
defendant No.6 22%
defendant No.7 6%
5. The Court Receiver is directed to take all
accounts from the parties and after receipt of it to
file the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and
compensation from the occupants of the partnership
firm, if any due.
6. Plaintiff and defendants are hereby restrained in
creating third party interest in the suit property or
disposing off, alienating, encumbering or parties
with possession of partnership assets and properties
by any means or by any manner.
7. Preliminary decree be drawn up accordingly.
8. Parties are directed to bear their costs.”
21. As such, the Petitioners before us are the original
plaintiff (Petitioner No.1) and Defendant No.7 (Petitioner No.2).
Petitioner No.1 has a share of only 9% and Petitioner No.2 has a
share of only 6% in the partnership properties assets and profits.
Sunny Thote 61 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
22. In Saligram Ruplal Khanna (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court (Three-Judges Bench), while considering the scope
of a dissolved partnership firm, has concluded as under:
‘30. Reference has also been made on behalf of the
appellants to the consent given by the respondent
on behalf of SAMCO on November 13, 1957 to the
award of Rs. 18,00,000 by Mr. Morarji Desai in
favour of the Custodian against SAMCO. It is
urged that this document would go to show that the
firm of SAMCO had not been dissolved before that
date. We are unable to agree. The arbitration
proceedings had been started as a result of
application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act
filed on April 21, 1955 when SAMCO was in
existence and was a running concern. The
arbitration proceedings related to a claim of the
Custodian of Rs. 30,00,000 on account of the price
of stocks of raw material, stores and other
moveables as well as about the arrears of rent.
Counter-claim had also been made by SAMCO
against the Custodian for a sum of Rs. 17,67,080
as per written, statement dated December 18, 1956
filed in arbitration proceedings. The consent which
was given by the respondent on November 13,
1957 was with a view to get the dispute between
SAMCO with the Custodian finally settled. This
was a necessary step for the purpose of winding up
the affairs of SAMCO and to complete transaction
of arbitration proceedings which had been begun
but remained unfinished at the time of dissolution.
According to Section 47 of the Indian Partnership
Act, after the dissolution of a firm the authority of
each partner to bind the firm, and the other mutual
rights and obligations of the partners, continue
notwithstanding the dissolution, so far as may be
necessary to wind up the affairs of the firm and to
complete transactions begun but unfinished at the
time of the dissolution, but not otherwise. The word
Sunny Thote 62 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
"transaction" in Section 47 refers not merely to
commercial transaction of purchase and sale but
would include also all other matters relating to the
affairs of the partnership. The completion of a
transaction would cover also the taking of
necessary steps in connection with the adjudication
of a dispute to which a firm before its dissolution is
a party. The legal position in this respect has been
stated on page 251 of Lindley on Partnership, 13th
Edn. as under:
Notwithstanding a dissolution each partner
can pay, or receive payment of, a
partnership debt; for it is clearly settled
that payment by one of several joint
debtors, or to one of several joint
creditors, extinguishes the debt
irrespective of any question of partnership.
So, again, it has been held that a
continuing or surviving partner may issue
a bankruptcy notice in the firm name in
respect of a judgment obtained before the
dissolution, and that notice to him of the
dishonour of a bill of exchange is
sufficient, and that he can withdraw a
deposit or sell the partnership assets, or
pledge them for the purpose of completing
a transaction already commenced, or of
securing a debt already incurred, or the
overdraft on the partnership current
account at the bank.
31. The proposition, in our opinion, cannot be
disputed that after dissolution, the partnership
subsists merely for the purpose of completing
pending transactions, winding up the business,
and adjusting the rights of the partners; and for
these purposes, and these only, the authority,
rights, and obligations of the partners continue
(see page 573 of Halsbury's Laws of England,
3rd Edn., Vol. 28). We would, therefore, hold
Sunny Thote 63 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
that the consent given by the respondent on
November 13, 1957 to the award of Mr. Desai
would not detract from the conclusion that the
firm of the parties stood dissolved on the expiry
of the fixed period of partnership, viz., August
30, 1957’.
23. It is, thus, a crystallized position that once a partnership
firm is dissolved, the authority of each partner to bind the firm
would continue, notwithstanding the dissolution, only to the extent
of winding up the affairs of the firm and to complete transactions
begun, but unfinished at the time of dissolution. No further
transactions/rights or creation of encumbrances is permitted.
24. Today, the Original Plaintiff, whose suit led to the
dissolution of the firm, is Petitioner No. 1 with a 9% share, and
Defendant No. 7 is Petitioner No. 2 with a 6% share. The Petitioners
did not comply with the order of the learned Single Judge dated
07.07.2022 and did not convey their willingness to redevelop the
building. In fact, the Petitioners played a trick of preparing a back-
dated letter of 06.01.2023 and served the letter on the Corporation
on 17.01.2023. The conduct of the Petitioners is apparent. In our
Writ jurisdiction, equities will favour a litigant who comes with
clean hands. The learned Single Judge had specifically recorded
Sunny Thote 64 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
that, if no such request was conveyed to the Corporation within six
months, the Corporation would be free to take over the land from
the owners while protecting the rights of the tenants/occupants.
Hence, the trick played by the Petitioners of preparing a back-dated
letter which was admittedly served on 17.01.2023.
25. As such, the partnership firm has apparently violated
the conditions of the lease agreement, as is visible from the records.
The suit preferred by the Plaintiff partners led to the dissolution of
the partnership firm. The breathing time of six months granted by
the learned Single Judge was squandered away by the Petitioners.
26. The judgment dated 09.06.2025 delivered by the
learned Single Judge clearly held that the partnership firm is
dissolved and that the order dated 07.07.2022 was violated by the
present Petitioners. The majority of the original partners have
passed away, and no legal heir certificates by the legal heirs were
shown to the learned Single Judge. Some of them accepted the order
of the City Civil Court dissolving the partnership firm, which
convinced the learned Single Judge to conclude that this Court
cannot deprive the occupants/tenants of the suit property, who have
Sunny Thote 65 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
been out of their premises for more than seven years (now eight
years), of their rights, and that the interest of the occupants/tenants
was of paramount importance.
It was also held that the conduct of the Petitioners
indicates that they only want to claim shares in the suit property and
do not desire to pay taxes and redevelop the suit property. An
attempt to pay taxes after the lease agreement is terminated, is of no
avail. The non-payment of the rents and taxes is writ large on the
face of the record.
27. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was
maintained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 17680 of 2025 by specifically concluding, ‘we find
no good ground or reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment/order passed by the High Court’. The fact that the
Petitioners have approached the High Court, was brought to the
notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
28. Considering all the relevant factors emerging from the
record, we are convinced that the impugned orders passed by the
Corporation terminating the lease agreement cannot be termed as
Sunny Thote 66 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
being perverse or erroneous. Glaring illegalities and irregularities
committed by the firm and then by the Petitioners, have been duly
considered and dealt with. In fact, taking into account the law laid
down in Saligram Ruplal Khanna (supra), a dissolved Partnership
firm cannot create further rights, more so, when it is sought to
initiate a new transaction of undertaking a new project of
construction of a building.
29. Merely because a different view could be possible,
would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned orders, in
view of the law laid down in Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan,
AIR 1964 SC 477, and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR
2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 682.
30. As such, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
31. Pending Interim Applications, if any, would not survive
and stand disposed off.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Sunny Thote 67 of 68
5-WP-3004-2025.odt
32. At this juncture, the learned Senior Advocate
Mr. Dwarkadas, along with the learned Advocates, for the two
Petitioners, pray for continuation of the interim arrangement that
was set out in the order dated 11.09.2025.
33. The learned Senior Advocates, Dr. Saraf and
Mr. Godbole, strenuously oppose the request. It is pointed out that
this Court had issued notice in the very first hearing and merely
directed to maintain a particular situation without even considering
the merits of the case.
34. We find from the order dated 11.09.2025 that we had
directed the Corporation not to finalise any lease proposal. From the
record available before us and the detailed analysis and conclusions
in this Judgment, we are not inclined to continue with the Interim
arrangement.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Sunny Thote 68 of 68
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.