Bombay High Court

AMBAJI KATHOD MHATRE AND ORSversusPANDURANG RAGHO PATIL AND ORS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The order allowing intervention by respondent No.1 is not to be entertained at this stage.

Summary

The petition challenges an order of the Revisional Authority that allowed respondent No.1 to intervene in pending proceedings, claiming protection as a statutory tenant. The Authority had preliminarily permitted the intervention but noted that the substantive question of tenancy must be decided after a full hearing. The High Court held that the order allowing intervention should not be entertained at this stage. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the Revisional Authority was directed to decide the revision within six months after hearing all parties. The decision emphasizes procedural propriety before adjudicating tenancy status.

Issues considered

Whether the Revisional Authority's order allowing intervention by respondent No.1 should be entertained at this stage
Whether respondent No.1 has established statutory tenancy under the applicable Act

Subjects

tenancy
intervention
revisional authority
statutory tenant
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                             20-wp-5966-2016.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.5966 OF 2016
                      Ambaji Kathod Mhatre & Ors.                  … Petitioners
SHABNOOR
AYUB                            V/s.
PATHAN                Pandurang Ragho Patil & Ors.                 … Respondents
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.09.07
16:24:56 +0530        Mr. Rajesh Sahani i/b D Shukla, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Kaustubh Kandpile, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, for the State – Respondent No.3.



                                                   CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                   DATED     : SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The petition arises out of an application filed by respondent
                      No. 1 seeking intervention and claiming protection as a tenant in
                      respect of the subject matter of the proceedings pending before the
                      Revisional Authority.

                      2.      The Revisional Authority, having considered the nature and
                      particulars of the claim made by respondent No. 1, allowed the
                      application for intervention. Whether respondent No. 1 has
                      established his/her tenancy as a statutory tenant is a matter which
                      will have to be considered by the Authority under the Act after
                      affording all the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

                      3.      However, at this stage, the impugned order allowing the
                      application for intervention filed by respondent No. 1 need not be
                      entertained.



                                                         1
                                                      20-wp-5966-2016.doc


4.   The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. No costs.

5.   The Revisional Authority shall decide the revision application
within a period of six months from today, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…