PADMA AMOL PISEversusSHRI 1008 CHANDRAPRABHU DIGAMBAR JAIN TEMPLE TRUST THR CHAIRMAN VIJAY B. RAJMANE

                                                                                   4820-2026-WP=.doc



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4820 OF 2026
          Digitally
          signed by
UDAY      UDAY         Padma Amol Pise & Ors.                                  … Petitioners
          SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI   JAGTAP

JAGTAP
          Date:
          2026.10.05
                                        Vs.
          16:06:44
          +0530
                       Shri 1008 Chandraprabhu Digambar Jain Temple            … Respondent
                       Trust

                                                      ………….
                       Mr. Umesh H Pawar for the Petitioners.
                       Mr. Nikhil Pawar a/w Manasi Patil, Rajdeep Shitole for the Respondent.
                                                      ………….
                                                        CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                                        DATE       : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                       FINAL ORDER :

                       .        Heard both sides.

                       2.       The petition takes except to judgment and order dated 24.08.2026

                       passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026 confirming rejection of

                       Application Exh.5 for temporary injunction in R.C.S. No. 203 of 2026.

                       3.       The petitioners have filed suit seeking relief of injunction that

                       respondent be restrained from causing any obstruction in carrying out

                       tenantable repairs of the premises. The temporary injunction is claimed

                       on the same line which is rejected on merits vide order dated 15.07.2026

                       which is confirmed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026. The petitioners

                       are tenants and in possession of shop which is double storied, measuring



                       Uday S. Jagtap                     1 of 5
                                                               4820-2026-WP=.doc



53.50 sq.meters situated at City Survey No. 4438 at Islampur, Tal. Walwa,

Dist. Sangli. The respondent is the landlord.

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Umesh Pawar submits that

both the Courts below committed error of jurisdiction in refusing to grant

injunction under the garb of notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the

Municipal Council under Section 195 of the Maharashtra Municipal

Council Act which is patent illegality.     The notice is got up one and is

inconsequential for grating relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that

the respondent is instrumental in creating false exigency and with a

oblique motive got issued the notice. It is submitted that the statutory

right of the petitioners under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Act is

overlooked by both the Courts below.        It is submitted that the structural

audit conducted at the instance of the petitioners falsify the claim of the

respondent and the Municipal Council. The petitioners have strong prima

facie case and balance of convenience lies in their favour.          They are

sustaining irreparable loss as the tenanted premise is not habitable.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the

false structural audit report has been submitted by the respondent. The

notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the Municipal Council is subjected to

challenge in Writ Petition before the Division Bench and it is not




Uday S. Jagtap                     2 of 5
                                                               4820-2026-WP=.doc



executable. The petitioners are ready to bear expenses for the repairs. If

the petitioners are permitted to carry out repairs that would be without

prejudice to any claim of the respondent for eviction. Reliance is placed

on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr.

Vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar & Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 661.

6.       Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Nikil Pawar

submits that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below

cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.       The matter involves

disputed questions of facts.     The tenanted premise is dilapidated and

hazardous to the surrounding properties. My attention is adverted to the

notice issued on 07.06.2019 to the petitioners and the report of structural

audit prepared at the instance of the respondent.      It is submitted that

granting relief to the petitioner at interlocutory stage would amount to

final relief.

7.       I have considered rival submissions of the parties.     I have gone

through the judgment cited by the petitioners in case of Baitulla Ismail

Shaikh (supra).     The purport of the notice issued under Section 195 of

the Act and its consequences are considered by the Supreme Court in the

matter of eviction proceedings initiated by landlord against the tenant.

The facts are distinguishable and the ratio laid down therein cannot be




Uday S. Jagtap                     3 of 5
                                                              4820-2026-WP=.doc



made applicable to the present case. In the case at hand, the petitioners

are not facing any eviction proceedings.       The matter is at interlocutory

stage. The suit of the petitioners is still pending.

8.       It reveals from the record that the relief claimed by Application at

Exh.5 is identical that of final relief claimed in the plaint. It is rightly

recorded by the Courts below that granting temporary injunction would

amount to grant of final relief in the suit. This Court is alive of the fact

that in the exceptional circumstances such a interim relief can be granted

but in the absence of strong prima facie case and irreparable loss such a

recourse can be adopted.

9.       Both the parties have rival claims regarding the dilapidated

condition of the premises. Admittedly, two storied structure is let out to

the petitioners for running a shop.          On both sides of the structure

permanent constructions are standing sharing common wall.                 The

structural audit report submitted by the parties can be gone into during

the course of trial. A full fledged inquiry into facts and law needs to be

undertaken. The petitioners have right under Section 14 of the

Maharashtra Rent Act to carry out tenantable repairs.

10.      In the teeth of issuance of notice under Section 195 of the Act, it

cannot be recorded that there is violation of statutory right of the



Uday S. Jagtap                      4 of 5
                                                             4820-2026-WP=.doc



petitioners when the matter is at interlocutory stage. It is not possible to

record a finding that notice under Section 195 was got issued with

oblique motive. The validity of the notice is not questioned in the suit.

The petitioners have already challenged it in the High Court and the

matter is sub-judice.

11.      Learned counsel for the respondent has rightly submitted that

there are concurrent findings of facts and both the Courts below have

taken reasonable and plausible view. I find that no case is made out by

the petitioners to cause interference.

12.      The Writ Petition is dismissed.



                                              ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )




Uday S. Jagtap                       5 of 5