Bombay High Court
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PARSI PUNCHAYAT AND ORSversusLALITA KUMAR SHAH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, and the Executing Court is directed to expeditiously record evidence and decide the obstructionist notice within six months.
Summary
The petitioners, Trustees of the Parsi Punchayat Funds, challenged an order of the Executing Court dated 19 August 2025 concerning Obstructionist Notice No.61 of 2008. The petition relied on an affidavit by an obstructionist who claimed tenancy rights under the Rent Statute and on the precedent set in Sanjay Ramchandra Parab v. Ashok D. Bhuta, which holds that structures erected by an inductee must be vacated when the original tenant is evicted. The Court observed that the obstructionist notice has been pending since 2008 and that deciding it without evidence would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Executing Court to promptly record evidence and decide the obstructionist notice within six months. All parties' rights and contentions were kept open for determination by the Executing Court.
Issues considered
- What procedural steps should the Executing Court take to adjudicate Obstructionist Notice No.61 of 2008 pending since 2008?
- Whether the admission by the obstructionist that he was inducted by the original tenant obliges him to vacate the structures under the precedent of Sanjay Ramchandra Parab v. Ashok D. Bhuta.
Subjects
- obstructionist notice
- tenancy
- rent statute
- eviction
- executing court
- writ petition
- expeditious trial
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:13662
Megha 11_wp_16372_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.16372 OF 2025
Trustees of the Parsi Punchayat Funds
and Properties and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Mrs. Lalita Kumar Shah and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jamsheed Master, Mr. Eshaan
Swaroop, Mr. Agnel Carneiro, Mr. Vipul Bilve, Mr. Smith Barboz i/b. M/s.
Mulla and Mulla & Cragie Blunt & Caroe for the Petitioners.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 18 MARCH 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 19 August 2025 passed by the
Executing Court on Application at Exhibit-56 Bled by the Petitioners
/Decree Holders in Obstructionist Notice No.61 of 2008.
2) Heard Mr. Naik, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners and considered the submissions canvassed by him.
3) Mr. Naik invites my attention to contents of afBdavit-in-reply
Bled by Obstructionist No.1 in which it is pleaded in paragraph 4 as
under:-
Page No.1 of 3
18 March 2026
Megha 11_wp_16372_2025
4. I say that the Garage premises bearing NoS.1 and 5 with
which I am concerned are situated at the property known as Dr.
J. J. Doshi Estate wherein there are about 15 more premises
existing and in lawful use Occupation and possession of the
respective tenants being the other Obstructionists situate at
the suit property. It is submitted that I am the tenant of the
said garage premises bearing Nos. 1 and 5 of which Dr. B. N.
Doshi and Dr. Kirit D. Doshi were the owners and Landlords till
January, 2008 as informed by them as stated hereinafter. I say
that I am possessed of the Rent Receipts issued by said Dr. B. N.
Doshi and Dr.Kirit E. Doshi in their capacity as Owners in
respect of said garage premises bearing Nos.1 and 5 and as
such I am well protected under the Rent Statute. I say that the
said premises are being used for our business purposes run
under the name and style of R. B. Sunkerkar therein with all
necessary Licences as required under the Law since last several
years and rely upon the same when produced. I say that the
documents relied upon by us as listed in the list of documents
herewith will establish my legal rights as Tenants in respect of
the said garage premises No.1 and 5 and as such I am protected
under the provisions of Rent Statute.
4) Mr. Naik relies on judgment of this Court in Sanjay Ramchandra
Parab V/s. Ashok D. Bhuta1 in support of his contention that once the
obstructionists are inducted by the tenant /licensee by constructing
structures on open piece of land and once decree for eviction is passed
against the original licensee/ tenant, his inductee must necessarily
vacate all the structures as well. He submits that since there is express
admission in paragraph 4 of the afBdavit-in-reply Bled by Obstructionist
No.1 that he was inducted by original tenant/ licensee into the structure,
the issue involved in Obstructionist Notice is squarely covered by
judgment of this Court in Sanjay Ramchandra Parab (supra). He submits
that similar admissions are given by all the Obstructionists. Mr. Naik
submits that Obstructionist Notice is pending since the year 2008 and in
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4943
Page No.2 of 3
18 March 2026
Megha 11_wp_16372_2025
view of express admission by the Obstructionist, there is no point in
taking Obstructionist Notice to trial.
5) In my view, instead of deciding the Obstructionist Notice without
evidence, it would be appropriate to expedite the proceedings in the
Obstructionist Notice, which is pending since the year 2008. It would
therefore be appropriate to direct that the Executing Court shall
forthwith proceed to record evidence in the Obstructionist Notice and to
decide the same considering the law enunciated by this Court in Sanjay
Ramchandra Parab (supra).
6) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a request to the
Executing Court to decide Obstructionist Notice No.61 of 2008 as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.
7) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open
to be decided by the Executing Court.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 18 March 2026
Date: 23/03/2026 15:38:15
Checking your session…