Bombay High Court
SHAIKH ISMAIL MOHAMMEDversusSHREE THIRTHANKAR COMPANY AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The plaintiff, as a rent collector defined under Section 7(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, possessed the requisite title to sue, and the executing court was not required to entertain the defendant's objections, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
The petition was filed by the original defendant challenging the orders of the executing court that dismissed his objection to the execution of an eviction decree. The petitioner argued that the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff was unregistered at the time the suit was filed, contending that the plaintiff lacked title to sue for eviction. The court noted that there was no dispute that the plaintiff was the rent collector and that the defendant had been inducted into the premises by the plaintiff. Relying on the definition of ‘landlord’ under Section 7(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit. Finding no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' decisions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiff had a valid title to institute an eviction suit when the conveyance deed was unregistered at the time of filing
- Whether the executing court was obligated to entertain the defendant's objections to the execution of the eviction decree
- Interpretation of ‘landlord’ under Section 7(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 7(3)
Subjects
- eviction
- landlord-tenant
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- execution of decree
- Article 227
- title to sue
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37786
24-WP-2367-2020.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2367 OF 2020
Swapnil
Shaikh Ismail Mohammed. …Petitioner
Vs.
Shree Thirthankar Company and Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Akshay Pawar a/w. Mr. Vasim Siddiqui, Mr. Faiz Ali Khan
for the petitioner.
Adv. Presha Naik i/b. Mr. Pradip Naik for respondent no.1.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed by the original defendant to
challenge the concurrent orders passed by the executing
court dismissing his application raising objection to the
execution of the eviction decree.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when
the suit was filed, the conveyance deed in favour of the
plaintiff was not registered and the plaintiff had no title to file
the suit. He further submits that in view of the conveyance
deed executed after the eviction decree is passed, it is clear
that the plaintiff had no title or any right to prosecute the suit
1/2
24-WP-2367-2020.docx
for eviction. He, therefore, submits that the executing court
was required to decide the objections raised by the petitioner.
3. I have perused the papers of the writ petition. There is
no dispute that the defendant was inducted in the suit
premises by the plaintiff. There is also no dispute that the
plaintiff is the rent collector. In view of these admitted facts,
both the courts have rightly refused to entertain the
objections raised by the defendant. In view of the definition of
a ‘landlord’ under Section 7 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act 1999, the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit.
4. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the reasons
recorded in the impugned orders warranting any interference
in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
5. The writ petition is dismissed.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…