Bombay High Court

NITISH YOGESH HAJARE AND ORSversusRAHUL SHARAD DESAI

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The appellate authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act cannot condone delay in filing an appeal, and the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit, so the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner sought to overturn an appellate court order that refused to condone a 77‑day delay in filing an appeal against an eviction decree issued under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioner argued that the eviction suit was untenable because the relationship with the respondent was that of a gratuitous licensee, not a landlord‑tenant, and that the appellate authority could condone the delay. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes, which held that the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act lacks power to condone such delays, and noted that the trial court had correctly accepted the respondent’s claim as there was no written statement or factual dispute raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court found the trial court had jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, granting only a limited stay of execution for eight weeks subject to payment of dues.

Issues considered

Whether the appellate authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act can condone a delay in filing an appeal.
Whether an eviction suit under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is maintainable when the parties share only a license relationship and no landlord‑tenant nexus.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court’s jurisdictional finding in the eviction matter.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Rent Control Act — s. 24

Subjects

eviction
rent control
condonation of delay
jurisdiction
licensee
landlord-tenant relationship
appellate authority
stay order

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11034 OF 2026


Nitish Yogesh Hajare                                     .. Petitioner

            Vs.
Rahul Sharad Desai & Anr.                                .. Respondent


Adv. A. P. Madhuri, Adv. Gaurang Pendurkar a/w Adv. Uday D. Kapse, for
the Petitioner.
Adv. Rahul Sharad Desai, for the Respondent.

                                  CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                  Date : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C. :


1.       Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2.       The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Court

refusing to condone the delay of 77 days delay in filing an Appeal

challenging the order of eviction passed against the Petitioner by the Small

Causes Court under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The

learned counsel for the Petitioner submits she had bonafide grounds for

seeking condonation of delay. She also submits that the Small Causes Court

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction as there is no

landlord tenant relations between the parties. She submits that the Petitioner

                                       1/3
5.WP.11034.2026.doc                                           Sufiyan Syed - PA
is a gratuitous licensee of the Respondent and the suit under Rent Control

Act is not maintainable. Perused the Judgment of the trial Court so also the

Judgment of the Appellate Court refusing to condone the delay of 77 days in

filing appeal by holding that it does not have the power to condone the delay

in filing Appeal.

3.     In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Prakash H. Jain vs. Ms. Marie Fernandes (2003) 8 SCC 431 is relevant

wherein it is held that the Appellate Authority constituted under the Rent

Control Act cannot condone the delay in filing Appeal as it has no power to

condone the delay under the Rent Control Act as the Act does not provide

for condonation of delay in filing Appeal.

4.     Perusal of the trial Court Judgment indicates that the Petitioner has not

filed his written statement and the case of the Respondent landlord has gone

uncontested. The Petitioner appeared before the trial Court however has

failed to file written statement as such the case made by the Respondent/

landlord that the Petitioner was given premises on leave and license basis

has been accepted by the trial Court. The same is based on the evidence

produced by the Respondent that they are the owners of the premises and

they had given the premises on oral leave and license agreement to the

Respondent. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent put up against the present

                                      2/3
5.WP.11034.2026.doc                                            Sufiyan Syed - PA
Petitioner defendant has not been contested on factual matrix. As such the

statement made by the Respondent landlord has been accepted by the trial

Court. This Court as such cannot entertain the submissions made by the

Petitioner that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the Petitioner

and the Respondent and the same cannot be adjudicated, in absence of any

factual dispute being raised before the trial Court. Considering the same, this

Court holds that the trial Court had the jurisdiction; to deal with the eviction

suit.

5.      In view of the same, no case made out to interfere in the impugned

judgment which is passed in accordance with law.

6.      Accordingly, Petition stands dismissed.

7.      After passing of the order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks

stay to the impugned order for a period of 8 weeks. The execution of the

impugned orders shall remain stayed for a period of 8 weeks subject to the

Petitioner paying all outstanding amounts.



                                                  (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                                      3/3
5.WP.11034.2026.doc                                             Sufiyan Syed - PA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…