Bombay High Court
ALI-AKBAR HUSSAINALI SHIRZADEversusTOKARSHI KANJI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rule Discharged
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner lacks a bonafide need and has failed to appear before the court.
Summary
The petitioner, originally a tenant, filed an eviction suit against the respondent alleging a bonafide requirement for the premises, which he had sublet. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that the petitioner was simultaneously subletting other shops and operating a tea stall, indicating no genuine need for the premises. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, but failed to appear before the court at any stage, including the year the rule was issued and subsequently in 2024. The appellate court observed that the petitioner had no bonafide requirement and had lost interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court discharged the rule and dismissed the writ petition for non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a bonafide requirement for the premises is valid for resisting eviction.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable when the petitioner fails to appear before the court.
Subjects
- eviction
- bonafide requirement
- subletting
- Article 227
- non‑appearance
- writ petition
- landlord‑tenant
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:10580
Diksha Rane 28 WP 1418 2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
28 WP/1418/2003
[Civil]
ALI-AKBAR HUSSAINALI SHIRZADE
VS
TOKARSHI KANJI
------------
None for petitioner.
Adv. Jaydeep Thakkar for respondent nos.1B and 1C.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 4 MARCH 2026.
P.C. :
1) None appears for the petitioner, who is the original plaintiff in
the eviction suit filed before the trial Court. Record shows that after
filing of this writ petition, none appeared for the petitioner even in
the year 2003 when Rule was issued. Thereafter, on 5/12/2024,
again none appeared for the petitioner. Even today none appears for
the petitioner.
2) It seems that petitioner has lost interest in pursuing this matter
any further.
3) Petitioner/original plaintiff who in fact is a tenant of the suit
premises. According to his case, he has sublet the premises to the
respondent. He filed an eviction suit on the ground of bonafide
requirement against the respondent.
1
Diksha Rane 28 WP 1418 2003.doc
4) The trial Court dismissed the eviction suit, so also, the
Appellate Court confirmed the decree of dismissal of the suit. Hence,
present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
5) In Paragraph No.24, of the Appellate Court’s judgment, it has
been specifically recorded that apart from the suit premises, Shop
No.5 which was available with the petitioner (original plaintiff) after
filing of the suit he had given the said premises to M/s. J. J.
Enterprises. It has been further recorded that there are no reasons
given by the petitioner why he is not using the said Shop No.5. It is
further being recorded that the petitioner was in possession of
Shops/galas and part of one of the shop is given to respondent. He is
running a business of ‘Cafe Kum Kum Tea Stall” at Worli, and five
premises he has sublet. Therefore, it was held that need of the
petitioner is not a bonafide need.
6) Since none appears for the petitioner, hence, Rule is discharged
and writ petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
2
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/03/2026 20:49:02
Checking your session…