Bombay High Court
SURESH VISHWANATH GAIKWADversusPRAFULL KUMAR OZARKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the written leave and license agreement precludes granting leave to defend despite the petitioner's allegations.
Summary
The Small Causes Court denied the petitioner's request for leave to defend a suit on the basis of an existing written leave and license agreement between the parties. The petitioner argued that the lease document was fraudulently obtained and asserted that an oral agreement to sale gave him ownership of the property. He sought to overturn the denial of leave to defend, contending that the oral sale agreement superseded the written lease. The High Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the respondent's status as landlord and that the written lease was a valid contract. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the earlier order and dismissed the writ petition. The petition was therefore dismissed without granting leave to defend.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a written leave and license agreement on a petitioner's claim for leave to defend a suit?
- Whether alleged fraud in obtaining the lease agreement and an oral agreement to sale can override the written lease for the purpose of granting leave to defend?
Subjects
- lease agreement
- license agreement
- fraud
- oral agreement to sale
- leave to defend
- small causes court
- writ petition
- dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36965
Diksha Rane 8 WP 11309 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11309/2026
SURESH VISHWANATH GAIKWAD ..PETITIONER
VS
PRAFULL KUMAR OZARKAR ..RESPONDENT
Adv. Sharad T. Bhosale for petitioner.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The Small Causes Court has denied leave to defend the suit,
on the ground of existence of a written leave and license agreement
between the parties. The order of Small Causes Court has been
upheld by the impugned order in RTS Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the leave
and license document is fraudulently obtained. However, there is no
denial that the respondent is the landlord. The petitioner’s
contention is that there is an oral agreement to sale, and he holds the
subject property under an oral agreement to sale.
Page 1 of 2
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 8 WP 11309 2026.docx
4. Based on such a contention, leave to defend cannot be
granted. Since the tenancy agreement in writing is entered between
the parties, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order
dated 9th June, 2026, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik
Division, Nashik In RTS Revision Application No.390 of 2024. The
present petition stands dismissed.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 2 of 2
3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2026 19:15:16
Checking your session…