Bombay High Court
MOHINI ALIAS SHANKUNTALA KALU SHETTYversusPANDURANG ANANT RANE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that the original issue subsumes the recast issue and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohini alias Shankuntala Kalu Shetty, filed a writ petition challenging a lower court order that had refused to recast the issue in a landlord‑tenant suit. The original issue framed was whether the plaintiff proved he was the landlord of the premises comprising Shop Nos.1‑3 at Rane Patra Chawl, Worli. The petitioner sought to replace it with a broader issue asking whether the plaintiff could establish a derivative title as owner and landlord, thereby justifying the suit. Both the Small Causes Court and the High Court below held that the original issue already encompassed the recast issue and that the respondent’s objection was a delay tactic. The High Court affirmed that ownership is not material in rent‑control proceedings; the landlord need only show entitlement to rent, and the Small Causes Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership under the Rent Control Act. Finding no error in the lower courts' reasoning, the bench dismissed the writ petition, leaving all parties' contentions open for future determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiff proved he is the landlord of the suit premises (Shop Nos.1‑3, Rane Patra Chawl).
- Whether the plaintiff can establish a derivative title as owner and landlord, thereby entitling him to file the suit.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- landlord
- tenant
- rent control
- ownership
- derivative title
- issue recasting
- Small Causes Court
- Rent Control Act
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37512
Diksha Rane 2 WP 6708 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6708/2026
MOHINI ALIAS SHANKUNTALA
KALU SHETTY ..PETITIONER
VS
PANDURANG ANANT RANE & ORS ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. Dhruva Gandhi a/w. Adv. Gauri Pathak i/b. Yash Legal
for petitioner.
Adv. Rajiv Hingu a/w. Adv. Deepraj Shetye for respondent
no.1.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
he moved an application for recasting of the issues. The already
framed original issue No.1 is noted below.
“Does the plaintiff proves that he is a landlord of suit premises
viz. Shop Nos.1 to 3, situated at Rane Patra Chawl (also
known as N.S. Rane Chawl), Pandurang Bhudkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai 400 013?”
3. The application made for recasting of the issue is as under:-
Page 1 of 2
10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Diksha Rane 2 WP 6708 2026.docx
“Whether Plaintiff proves his derivative title as owner and
landlord of the suit property & thus entitled to file this suit.”
4. Both the Courts below have held that the issue no.1
subsumes the recasted issue which is sought to be added. The Courts
have held that the defendant is attempting to delay the proceedings.
5. In the suit between the landlord and the tenant, the
ownership is hardly of any consequence. The landlord has to only
establish that he is entitled to receive the rent. The ownership aspect
cannot be dealt by the Small Causes Court under the Rent Control
Act. No errors found in the order passed by both the Courts below.
6. The writ petition stands dismissed.
7. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 2 of 2
10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2026 16:44:38
Checking your session…