Bombay High Court
DOMINIC/ KISAN WARWALE AND ANRversusGEETA SHASHIDHAR KARKERA (UCHIL)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the ad‑interim relief granted on 16 February 2017 shall continue, the petitioner must not part with possession or create third‑party rights, and Respondent may withdraw the deposited amount subject to an undertaking to return it if the petition succeeds.
Summary
The petition concerns a dispute over ownership and possession of a premises where the petitioner claims original ownership, while Respondent No.1 asserts rights based on a sale agreement dated 22 June 2004. Respondent filed an eviction application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, relying on a leave‑and‑license agreement dated 17 June 2004, which predates the sale agreement. The High Court had earlier granted ad‑interim relief on 16 February 2017, conditioning it on the petitioner depositing a specified sum, which the petitioner subsequently complied with. Respondent now seeks withdrawal of the deposited amount, arguing that the leave‑and‑license agreement is invalid. The Court ordered that the earlier interim relief continue, prohibiting the petitioner from creating third‑party rights or surrendering possession, and required the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking the same. Respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount on the condition of filing an undertaking to return it if the petition is ultimately decided in the petitioner’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether the leave‑and‑license agreement dated 17 June 2004 is valid and can support an eviction under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
- Whether the ad‑interim relief granted earlier should continue pending the final decision.
- Whether Respondent No.1 may withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner pending the outcome of the writ petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- property dispute
- leave and license agreement
- sale agreement
- eviction
- interim relief
- rent control
- possession
- withdrawal of deposit
Judgment
16-wp-629-2017-ia-7000-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
varsha
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6291 OF 2017
Geeta Shashidhar Karkera(Uchil) … Petitioner
vs.
Dominic/Kisan Warwale and Anr … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7000 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6291 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6291 OF 2017
Dominic/Kisan Warwale and Anr … Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Geeta Shashidhar Karkera(Uchil) … Petitioner
VARSHA
VIJAY vs.
RAJGURU
Digitally signed by
VARSHA VIJAY
Dominic/Kisan Warwale and Anr … Respondents
RAJGURU
Date: 2026.08.21
18:43:49 +0530
Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh a/w. Mr. Vatsal Verma and D.S. Mishra i/b.
D S Law Bureau for the Petitioner.
Mr. Datta Mane a/w. Ms. Radhika Samant, Ms. Pooja Bhide for the
Respondent.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026
ORDER:
1. Arguable points are raised. Hence Rule.
Page no. 1 of 3
16-wp-629-2017-ia-7000-2024.doc
2. Learned counsel for the respondent waives notice.
3. This court vide order dated 16th February 2017 had granted
ad interim relief subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the Rs.
1,40,000/- as directed by the competent authority. Thereafter, vide
order dated 21st February 2024, the petitioner was directed to
deposit a further sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- in this court. The directions
are complied with and the amount is deposited in this court.
4. The petitioner is the original owner of the subject premises.
The respondent no.1 is claiming right in respect of the subject
premises based on the agreement for sale dated 22 nd June 2004.
The eviction application before the competent authority is filed
based on the leave and license agreement dated 17 th June 2004
which appears to be executed prior to the document of title relied
upon by the respondent. Prima facie the applicant has made out the
case of the invalidity of the leave and license agreement for
maintaining the application for eviction filed under Section 24 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (‘Rent Act’) .
5. Hence, during the pendency of the writ petition, ad-interim
relief granted on 16th February 2017, shall continue to operate. The
petitioner shall not create any third party rights or part with the
possession of the subject premises in favour of the third party. The
Page no. 2 of 3
16-wp-629-2017-ia-7000-2024.doc
Petitioner shall file a fresh affidavit-cum-undertaking stating that she
will not create any third party rights or part with the possession in
respect of the subject premises, till decision of this writ petition.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7000 OF 2024 AND INTERIM
APPLICATION NO. 6291 OF 2017.
6. The interim applications are filed by the respondent no.1 for
withdrawal of the amount deposited by the petitioner in this court. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no.1 shall be
permitted to withdraw the amount subject to filing an undertaking in
this court that if the petitioner succeeds in the petition, the
withdrawn amount shall be brought back to the court if the directions
are issued by this court.
7. Interim Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 3 of 3
Checking your session…