Bombay High Court

SITALAXMI KRISHNA KANCHAN AND ORSversusSANJAY YASHWANT MHATRE

Decided: 10 July 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: ARUN R PEDNEKER

Holding

The eviction suit is maintainable before the Small Causes Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the maintainability of an eviction suit filed by the respondent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging that they were not recognized as tenants. The petitioners argued that the plaintiff had not acknowledged their tenancy, rendering the suit improper before the Small Causes Court. The lower courts found that the plaintiff’s plaint expressly recognized the petitioners as tenants, and the suit was based on bona‑fide requirement and non‑residence for twelve years. The High Court affirmed these findings, noting that the suit was therefore maintainable under the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the eviction suit is maintainable before the Small Causes Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, given the alleged lack of recognition of the petitioners as tenants.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

Subjects

eviction
rent control
maintainability
Small Causes Court
tenancy
bona fide requirement

Judgment

                                             32-WP-823-2025.DOC




ARP


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2025

Sitalaxmi Krishna Kanchan & Ors.                 ...Petitioners
       Versus
Sanjay Yashwant Mhatre                           ...Respondent


Mr. M. V. Holamagi, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Vandana V. Margwana, for the Respondent.


                     CORAM        ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                     DATED:       10th JULY 2026
PC:-

1.     The learned counsel for the Petitioners files an Affidavit-
in-Rejoinder. The same is taken on record.

2.     Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. The
learned counsel submits that the Plaintiff has not recognized
the Petitioners as tenants of the suit premises, and therefore,
the Suit is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court,
Mumbai under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999.

3.     Both the Courts below have observed that the Plaintiff
has recognized the Petitioners as tenants of the suit premises.
The same is reflected from the plaint itself and the averments
contained in the plaint. The Suit is filed under the Rent



                             Page 1 of 2
                            10th July 2026
                                                32-WP-823-2025.DOC




Control Act for eviction from suit premises on the ground of
bona fide requirement and on the ground that the Petitioners
have not been residing in the premises for the last 12 years.

4.   Both the grounds being raised under the Rent Control
Act and in view of the prima facie findings recorded by both
the Courts below, no case is made out to contend that the suit
is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

5.   Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                           (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)




                            Page 2 of 2
                          10th July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…