ASHRAF FIROZ SHAIKHversusDOST MOHAMMED GULAM MOHAMMAED ACHHWA

                                                   926 WP 4924.25.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO.4924 OF 2025
Mr. Ashraf Firoz Shaikh                             …Petitioner
      Versus
Mr. Dost Mohammed Gulam Mohammed                    …Respondent
Achhwa


Mr. Saiprasad R. Dudhane for Petitioner.
Mr. Hira Gumma for Respondent.


                       CORAM:       MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :      13th January 2026
P.C.:


1.       Heard Mr. Saiprasad Dudhane, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. Hira Gumma, learned Counsel for the

Respondent.



2.       By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenge is to the legality and validity of

Order dated 30th January 2025 passed by the learned Appellate

Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Revision Application No.

222 of 2024 as also Order dated 30 th July 2024 passed by the

learned Judge of Small Causes Court, Mumbai below Exhibit-8 in

L.E. Suit No. 29 of 2023.




                               Page 1 of 7
Dusane
                                                  926 WP 4924.25.DOC




3.       By the impugned Order dated 30 th July 2024 passed by the

learned Trial Court, the present Petitioner i.e. the Defendant has

been directed to pay interim compensation from 1 st March 2020 till

30th June 2024 i.e. for 52 months @ Rs.13,000/- per month i.e. the

aggregate of amount of Rs.6,76,000/- and further directed to

deposit Rs.13,000/- per month on or before 10 th day of each

succeeding month till disposal of the suit.



4.       The said Order has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench

of Small Causes Court.



5.       It is the main submission of Mr. Dudhane learned Counsel

for the Petitioner that there is a cloud on the title of the

Respondent and the F.I.R. has been filed by the Petitioner against

the Respondent that the Leave and License Agreement has been

executed by misrepresentation. He further submits that there is

document of surrender of tenancy and signature of the same is

forged and fabricated.



6.       On the other hand, Mr. Gumma, learned Counsel for the

Respondent points out S.C. Suit No.1361 of 2020 filed by the




                              Page 2 of 7
Dusane
                                                       926 WP 4924.25.DOC




present Petitioner and more particularly paragraph No.3 of the

same. He therefore submits that in fact the Petitioner has come up

with the case that there is a Leave and License Agreement executed

with the parties on 18th February 2020 and the period of said

agreement is 1st January 2020 till 30th November 2020. He submits

that admittedly from 1st March 2020 till date, not a single farthing

has been paid by the Petitioner and the Petitioner is in possession

of the suit premises.



7.       Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set

out certain factual aspects.



8.       The Petitioner has filed S.C. Suit No. 1361 of 2020 in the

Bombay City Civil Court, seeking injunction and in the said Suit,

the Plaintiff has come up with following contentions:-


         “2. The defendant is a tenant and owner of the suit
         premises from which the Plaintiff has taken the same
         on leave and license basis. The defendant is residing at
         the address mentioned in the case title.

         3.    The Plaintiff states that about three and half
         years back the defendant gave the suit premises to the
         plaintiff on leave and license basis. However, at that
         time no written agreement was executed between the
         plaintiff and the defendant. The Plaintiff states that




                                 Page 3 of 7
Dusane
                                                    926 WP 4924.25.DOC




         thereafter, the defendant insisted on executing written
         leave and license agreement and therefore, on 18 th
         February, 2020, leave and license agreement has been
         executed between the plaintiff and the defendant in
         which is shown that the said agreement is deemed to
         have commenced on 1st day of January, 2020 and shall
         expire on 30th day of November, 2020. Hereto annexed
         and marked as "EXHIBIT - A" is copy of leave and
         license agreement dated 18 th February, 2020. The
         Plaintiff states that he is having documents of the
         defendant such as rent receipt, aadhar card, pan card,
         etc. Hereto annexed and marked as "EXHIBIT B-Colly"
         are copies of Rent receipt, Aadhar card and Pan card of
         defendant. The plaintiff states that he is having
         documents in respect of the suit premises such as
         Aadhar card, Pan card and Electric bill at the address
         of the suit premises. Hereto annexed and marked as
         "EXHIBIT - C" is copy of Aadhar card. Hereto annexed
         and marked as "EXHIBIT - D" is copy of Pan card.
         Hereto annexed and marked as "EXHIBIT E" is copy of
         Electric bill.”

                                             (Emphasis added)

9.       Thus what the present Petitioner in the Bombay City Civil

Court suit, stated that the present Respondent is owner of the suit

premises. The said premises has been taken by the Plaintiff on

leave and license basis. It has been further stated that about 3½

years back, the present Respondent gave the suit premises to the

Petitioner on leave and license basis, however, at that time, no

written agreement was executed and thereafter leave and license




                               Page 4 of 7
Dusane
                                                     926 WP 4924.25.DOC




agreement dated 18th February 2020 has been executed. The

period of said agreement is 1st January 2020 till 30th November

2020. Thus, even as per contentions raised by the present

Petitioner in Bombay City Civil Court suit, it is clear that he has

admitted that the Respondent is the owner of suit premises and the

Petitioner entered in the suit premises on leave and license basis,

initially on the basis of oral leave and license and thereafter

written agreement dated 18th February 2020. Admittedly as per

said leave and license agreement, the agreed compensation is

Rs.13,000/- per month.



10.      The learned Trial Court has directed the Petitioner to deposit

said amount Rs.13,000/- per month in the Trial Court.



11.      At this stage, it is required to be clarified that although

Clause No.2 of the Order dated 30 th July 2024 mentions that the

Defendant i.e. the present Petitioner is directed to pay interim

compensation, however Clause No. 3 clarifies that the direction is

to deposit the said amount. Thus, it is clear that by reading Clauses

2 and 3 clearly show that the said amount of Rs.13,000/- per

month is required to be deposited before the learned Trial Court.




                                Page 5 of 7
Dusane
                                                       926 WP 4924.25.DOC




12.      The learned Appellate Court has confirmed said Order by

giving cogent reasons.



13.      Learned Counsel for the Respondent points out Order dated

18th January 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibit-

43 in L.E. Suit No. 29 of 2023 by which defence of the Defendant

i.e. the present Petitioner is struck out.



14.      It is required to be noted that the challenge in this Petition is

to the Order dated 30th July 2024 passed by the learned Trial Court

as also Order dated 30th January 2025 passed by the learned

Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court.



15.      Throughout there was no stay granted to the Order dated

30th July 2024. It is admitted position that the Petitioner has not

paid a single farthing from 1st March 2020 till date i.e. for last

about 6 years. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not the owner of the

property. He is occupying the property without making any

payment. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances, no case is

made out for interference in the impugned Order under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.




                                 Page 6 of 7
Dusane
                                                                         926 WP 4924.25.DOC




                      16.      Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no

                      Order as to costs.


BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL
DUSANE                                                            (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
Digitally signed by
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE
Date: 2026.01.14
19:41:14 +0530




                                                    Page 7 of 7
                      Dusane