Bombay High Court
M/S. NOVEL CUISINES PRIVATE LIMITED THR. IS AUTH. SIGNATORY ANIL ANTHONY AFONSOversusM/S. ABC ENTERPRISES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THR. ITS PARTNER TAHIR ISANI AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The respondent must deposit rent with a 15% increase over the last agreed rent of Rs.1,84,000, together with GST, from 15‑Oct‑2023 until final disposal of the suit.
Summary
M/s Novel Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) entered into a six‑year lease for shops 15 and 16 with M/s ABC Enterprises (respondent). The lease stipulated a 15% rent increase every three years, making the rent Rs.1,84,000 per month for the second term plus GST. After the lease expired on 15‑Oct‑2023, the respondent failed to vacate and stopped paying rent, prompting the petitioner to file a suit for eviction and an application under Order XV‑A of the CPC. The trial court ordered the respondent to continue depositing the existing rent of Rs.1,84,000 monthly, ignoring the contractual 15% increase. The petitioner appealed, arguing that the court must enforce the rent increase under Clause 5.4, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Atul J. Doshi v. Pramukh Properties. The High Court held that the trial court erred, modified the order to require the respondent to deposit rent with the 15% increase plus GST, and partially allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent is required to deposit rent with the contractual 15% increase under Clause 5.4 of the lease deed after the lease term expired.
- Whether the trial court’s order under Order XV‑A of the CPC was correct in directing payment of the pre‑increase rent amount.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Atul J. Doshi v. Pramukh Properties applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 10, Order XV-A
Subjects
- lease agreement
- eviction
- rent increase
- Order XV-A
- CPC amendment
- landlord‑tenant dispute
- injunction
- deposit of rent
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1900 WP-273-2025
Suzana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.273 OF 2025
M/s Novel Cuisines Private
Limited, a company
incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered office at
Gaylord Restaurant, Mayfair
Building, V. N. Road, Church
Gate, Mumbai – 400020
through its authorized signatory
Mr. Anil Anthony Afonso, S/o
Anthony Afonso Age 54 years,
businessman, R/o H. no. 340,
Old Goa steel yard, Opp. Petrol
Pump, Old Goa, Tiswadi, Goa … Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s ABC Enterprises A
Partnership Firm Through
its partner Mr. Tahir Isani,
S/O. Vasanali Isani, Age 62
years, businessman,
Having office at 1" Floor,
Manek Chambers Above
Angleys Sports, Opp.
Municipal Garden, Panjim,
Goa — 403001
Email:[email protected]
2. Mr. Tahir Isani, S/O.
Vasanali Isani, Age 62
years, businessman
Partner, M/s. ABC
Enterprises, R/o
Manek, Altinho, Mapusa. … Respondents.
Page 1 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
Mr. Pranay Kamat, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate with Ms. Sara Desai,
Advocate for Respondents.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved on: 8th SEPTEMBER 2026.
Pronounced on: 24th SEPTEMBER 2026.
ORDER:
1. The Petitioner impugns Order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Learned
Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division ‘B’ Court, Merces, Goa, thereby
partly allowing Petitioner’s application at Exhibit D-4 under Order 39
Rule 10 and Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff in the Suit. The Suit has
been instituted against Defendants for relief of declaration, eviction,
recovery of compensation and permanent injunction in relation to
Shops no.15 and 16 situated on the ground floor of building named
‘Magnum Centre’ M.G. Road, Panaji. The Petitioner executed a Lease
Deed dated 31.07.2017 with Respondent No.1 for leasing out the suit
Shops as per Terms and Conditions of the Lease Deed for a period of six
years commencing from 16.10.2017 and expiring on 15.10.2020. The
Lease for initial three years was agreed at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-
Page 2 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) per month and Rs.1,84,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only) per month from
16.10.2020 till 15.10.2023. The Respondent was to pay Service Tax and
GST as applicable, which was to be paid each month along with the rent.
Clause No.5.4 of the Agreement specifies that rent shall be increased at
the end of every three years from the commencement date by 15% over
the last paid rent, as described in detail in Schedule C of the Lease Deed.
3. Before expiry of the lease period, Petitioner had given a Notice to
the Respondent regarding termination of the lease and his intention not
to renew the same. However, Respondent replied of having some
agreement for purchase of the premises with the Petitioner, which was
denied. On 20.07.2023, again the Petitioner informed the Respondent
regarding termination of the lease and requested to vacate the premises
by 15.10.2023 by clearing all dues including arrears of rent, water, and
electricity charges. On 13.10.2023, Respondent showed inability to
hand over possession of the suit Shops on 15.10.2023 and sought
extension of time to vacate and hand over physical possession. On
28.12.2023, Respondent submitted Affidavit-cum-Undertaking-cum-
Declaration admitting, affirming and declaring his intention to vacate
the shops on or before 31.03.2024, to which Petitioner agreed and
extended time for vacating up to 31.03.2024. Respondent paid rent at
Page 3 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
the rate of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only)
for the period from 16.10.2023 till 15.01.2024. Thereafter, Respondent
stopped paying the rent and kept on requesting for extension of time.
However, he did not vacate the premises. The Petitioner was compelled
to file Special Civil Suit No.42/2024/B before Civil Judge Senior
Division at Panaji for the reliefs claimed, along with application under
Order 39 Rule 10 and Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking deposit of compensation and injunction. The trial Court
allowed the application thereby directing Respondent to deposit
Rs.12,28,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand only)
within 75 days of passing the order and thereafter, continue to deposit
in succeeding months Rs.1,84,000/- till final disposal of the suit. Hence,
this Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Pranay Kamat, Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner,
submits that the Petitioner had filed an application in terms of Order
XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as inserted by Bombay
Amendment. The Lease Agreement between the parties clearly
stipulates a 15% increase in rent at the end of every three years from
commencement date. Therefore, on expiry of lease period on
15.10.2023, the Respondent was under obligation to pay the last agreed
rent along with 15% increase with the GST amount. However, the
Page 4 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
impugned Order merely directs Respondent to pay the monthly rent of
Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand only) till final
disposal of the Suit which is consistent with the agreed terms between
the parties. In support of his contention, he relied upon the observation
of Supreme Court in case of Atul J. Doshi and Others v/s.
Pramukh Properties and Developers Private Limited 1 to
contend that in absence of the dispute as regards to the Agreement and
its Clauses, it was necessary to direct payment of licence fee as agreed
with proportionate increase, arrears and regular payment of licence fee
must be paid by the licencee in the same Terms.
5. Per contra, Mr Preetam Talaulikar, Learned Advocate appearing
for the Respondent supports the impugned Order. He submits that any
additional payment over agreed rent/licence fee or any compensation or
any claim for compensation are the subject matters to be decided at the
stage of final disposal of the Suit. The trial Court is, therefore, justified
in directing Respondents to continue to deposit rent amount as lastly
paid.
1
2025 DGLS (SC) 1668
Page 5 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
6. Having considered submissions advanced by Learned Advocate
appearing for respective parties, it is apposite to refer Clause XV-A of
Civil Procedure Code (Bombay Amendment) which reads thus:
“Order XV-A
STRIKING OFF DEFENCE IN A SUIT BY A LESSOR
1. In any suit by a lessor or a licensor against a lessee or a
licensee, as the case may be, for his eviction with or without the
arrears of rent or licence fee and future mesne profits from him,
the defendant shall deposit such amount as the Court may
direct on account of arrears up to the date of the Order (within
such time as the Court may fix) and thereafter continue to
deposit in each succeeding month the rent or licence fee
claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. The defendant shall
unless otherwise directed continue to deposit such amount till
the decision of the suit.
In the event of any default in making the deposits, as aforesaid,
the Court may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike
off the defence.
(2) Before passing an order for striking off the defence, the
Court shall serve notice on the defendant or his advocate to
show cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and
the Court shall consider any such cause, if shown in order to
decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from an
order striking off the defence.
437 [(3) The amount deposited under this rule shall be paid to
the plaintiff lessor or licensor or his advocate and the receipt
of such amount shall not have the effect of prejudicing the
claim of the plaintiff and it shall not also be treated as a waiver
of notice of termination.
Explanation.—The suit for eviction shall include suit for
mandatory injunction seeking removal of licensee from the
premises for the purpose of this rule.]” (1-10-1983) — See
Maharashtra Government Gazette, 15-9-1983; Pt. 4, Ka, p. 406.
Goa Gazette, 12-10-1987, Extra., S. 1, No. 28, p. 380 (1-4-1987).
Sub-rule (3) and Explanation were inserted by Maharashtra
Government Gazette, 11-1-1990, Pt. IV, Ka, p. 28.”
Page 6 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
7. In present case, there is no dispute as regards the relationship as
Lessor and Lessee between the Petitioner and Respondents. There is no
dispute regarding the Clauses of Lease Deed. The Clauses pertaining to
rent appearing in the Agreement read thus:
“5. RENT
5.1 The monthly rent, including maintenance charges &
excluding service tax payable in respect of the Premises
by the LESSEE to the LESSOR during the subsistence of
this Deed of lease shall be Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One
Lac Sixty Thousand Only) per month, subject to tax
deduction at source as per the provisions of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (“Rent), for the scheduled premises, for
which appropriate Certificate/s shall be handed over to
the Lessor by the Lessee. The LESSEE shall bear the
Service Tax /GST as applicable. The Service Tax /GST
shall be paid to the LESSOR each month along with the
rent. The detailed invoice shall be submitted by the
LESSOR to the LESSEE. The Service tax/GST details
(for e.g. Service tax number, GST number etc.) shall be
provided by the LESSOR to the LESSEE.
5.2 The LESSEE shall be liable to pay Rent from 16"
October 2017 ie. after the expiry of rent-free period of
60 (sixty) days as mentioned above or on business
commencement whichever is earlier. The rent is
calculated on 1st day of each English calendar month,
unless otherwise the LESSEE is deprived of possession
and enjoyment of the leased premises.
5.3 The LESSEE shall pay the Rent to the LESSOR by
Cheques/Bank Transfer on or before the 10th day of
each English calendar succeeding month, unless
otherwise agreed to between by the LESSOR and
LESSEE, in writing. The Lessee hereby undertakes that
all the said cheques on presentation for encashment on
Page 7 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
their due dates, shall be duly encashed and neither the
payment thereof shall be stopped and nor they will be
returned unpaid for want of funds.
5.4 The Rent shall be increased at the end of every 3
(Three) years from the Commencement date by 15%
over last paid rent, as described in detail in Schedule C
below.”
8. A plain reading of aforesaid Clauses shows that the Lease
Agreement was for a period of six years. The rent was fixed at the rate
of Rs.1,60,000/- in addition to GST for first three years, and then it was
to be increased by 15% on expiry of every third year from
commencement date by 15% over the last paid rent. The last agreed rent
for second term of three years was Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Eighty Four Thousand only) plus GST. The impugned Order shows that
the trial Court accepted the Petitioner’s case as to the agreed terms of
lease and eventually passed the impugned Order directing Respondents
to pay the monthly rent of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four
Thousand only) before 10th of every month along with arrears of the rent
for month of June 2024 to July 2024 and from August 2024 till passing
of the order with further direction to continue to deposit the said sum of
money every month till final disposal of the Suit.
9. However, as rightly contended by Learned Advocate appearing for
the Petitioner, the trial Court failed to take cognisance of Clause No.5.4
Page 8 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
in the Lease Deed, which stipulates an increase of 15% rent on expiry of
the term of three years. In present case on expiry of term of six years,
the last agreed rent was Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four
Thousand only) plus GST. The lease period expired on 15.10.2023.
Respondent was under obligation to pay the rent amount with 15%
increase over Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand
only) along with GST as applicable.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Atul J. Doshi (supra), while
dealing with the application under Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Code
(Bombay Amendment), observed that the intended object to bring
amendment inserting Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Code is to secure
the interest of landlords with respect to premises gratuitously occupied
by the licencee even after termination of lease or licence, as the case may
be, without payment of rent or licence fee. To eradicate such prejudice
against landlord in a suit for eviction, which may take some time to be
finally adjudicated, the order for payment of rent or licence fee may be
directed. Therefore, once the conditions for exercise of discretion under
Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Code (Bombay Amendment) as to filing
of suit for eviction with or without prayer for arrears of rent or licence
fee and future mesne profit, it is obligatory on the part of the Defendant
to deposit the arrears upto the date of order by the Court and in case of
Page 9 of 10
-----------------------
24th September 2026
WP-273-2025
default made by licencee or licensor, the defence can be struck off
following procedure as prescribed in Rule 2. In light of the aforesaid
exposition of law, the Petitioner was entitled for the last agreed rent
along with appropriate increase and the GST amount as per terms of the
lease between the parties particularly in the wake of fact there is no
dispute as regards to such terms and conditions.
11. In result, Writ Petition deserved to be partly allowed. Hence,
Order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Learned
Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit
No.42/2024/B below Exhibit D-4 is modified.
(iii). The Respondent Defendant shall deposit the arrears of rent
and continue to deposit rent with 15% increase over the last
rent of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Four
Thousand only) from 15.10.2023, in addition to GST as
prescribed under Terms of the Lease.
(iv) The rest part of the impugned Order shall mutatis mutandis
apply with aforesaid modification.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Page 10 of 10
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO -----------------------
Designation: Personal Assistant 24th September 2026
Date: 24/09/2026 14:32:41
Checking your session…