Bombay High Court
MOHAN RAMCHANDRA KAMBLIversusSUHASINI SAINATH KAMATH and ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The averments of subletting in the plaint, coupled with the tenant’s failure to produce evidence of ownership, suffice to sustain the eviction decree on the ground of subletting.
Summary
The landlord filed an eviction suit alleging bona fide requirement and subletting. The tenant (defendant no.1) did not testify, while defendant no.2 (the petitioner) claimed to have purchased the premises but produced no documentary proof of ownership. The trial and appellate courts upheld eviction on the ground of subletting, finding the plaintiff's averments sufficient. The petitioner challenged these findings, arguing lack of evidence of subletting. Citing Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty, the court held that an allegation of subletting in the plaint, together with receipt of consideration, shifts the burden to the tenant to disprove it. Since the petitioner failed to produce ownership documents, the courts' decrees were affirmed. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiff established the ground of subletting for eviction
- Whether the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to disprove subletting
- Whether the trial and appellate courts' findings were perverse or erroneous
Subjects
- eviction
- subletting
- burden of proof
- landlord-tenant
- bona fide requirement
- writ petition
- trial court
- appellate court
Judgment
KVM
1/3
33 - WP 1570 OF 2002.doc
Digitally
signed by
KANCHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.06.08
10:50:46
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1570 OF 2002
MOHAN RAMCHANDRA KAMBLI ….. PETITIONER
VS
SUHASINI SAINATH KAMATH & ORS. ….. RESPONDENTS
Adv. S.G.Karandikar for the Petitioner.
Adv. R. M. Haridas for the Respondents.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 27 MARCH, 2026
P.C. :-
1) The present writ petition is filed by the original defendant
no.2, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court of eviction, on the ground of subletting.
2) The landlord had filed a suit of eviction on the grounds of
bona fide requirement and subletting. The landlord examined two
witnesses to prove both the grounds. The defendant no.1 was the
tenant of the landlord, who did not step into the witness box. The
defendant no.2 – the present petitioner in all examined three
witnesses. It was the case of the defendant no.2 that he had
purchased the suit premises from the defendant no.1. However, the
KVM
2/3
33 - WP 1570 OF 2002.doc
defendant no.2 did not produce any evidence to show that he is the
owner of the suit premises. In the examination-in-chief of the
defendant no.2, he categorically stated that he purchased the suit
premises from the defendant no.1, who had executed a sale receipt
dated 13 January, 1979. The said document was not exhibited, but
was only identified and marked as ‘Y’. Since the defendant no.1 did
not enter into the witness box, therefore the ground of subletting was
answered in favour of the landlord by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court.
3) The plaintiff, defendant no.4 in her evidence clearly
mentioned that she was residing in the suit premises and she had a
document being the leaving certificate issued by the Sarvodaya
Vidyalaya, Ghatkopar. The same was produced on record and marked
Ex.‘C-1’.
4) As far as ground of bona fide requirement is concerned,
the said ground was answered against the landlord. Therefore, in this
writ petition, the ground of subletting is to be considered. In the
plaint, a categorical statement has been made by the landlord that the
defendant no.1, had sublet the suit premises for the defendant no.2.
5) Supreme Court in the judgment of Dipak Banerjee vs.
Lilabati Chakraborty, 1987 (4) SCC 161 has held that as far as ground
KVM
3/3
33 - WP 1570 OF 2002.doc
of subletting is concerned, the averments in the plaint has to be
considered. If there is averment in plaint of subletting and
consideration received by tenant, that is enough. The burden will
shift to tenant to prove that there is no subletting.
6) In my view, considering the averments made in the plaint
and a specific case of the defendant no.2 that he had purchased the
suit premises from the defendant no.1-tenant, and as he was not able
to produce any document on record to prove his ownership of the suit
premises, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly decreed
the suit on the ground of ‘subletting’.
7) I don’t find any perversity in the judgment recorded by
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
8) Hence, the present writ petition stands rejected.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
Checking your session…