LT. COL. SURESH D. PATIL (RETD)versusANURADHA DAMODAR PANSE

Sonali Mane                                                   40-WP-9374-2026.docx



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9374 OF 2026

Lt. Col. Suresh D. Patil (Retd)                          … Petitioner
         Versus
Anuradha Damodar Panse & Anr.                            … Respondents



Adv. Shon Gadgil a/w Adv. Siddharth Khandelwal for Petitioner.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiyani, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Rahul Soman i/b
Adv. Shweta Dali for Respondents.


                                  CORAM      : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                  DATE       : 21 AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :


1.            Heard learned counsel appearing for parties.



2.            The Petitioner, original Plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 16 of 2026

before the Small Causes Court, Pune, has filed the present petition

challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7 July, 2026 passed by the

District Judge-17, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2026. By the

impugned order, the District Court allowed the Respondents’ appeal,

and set aside the order dated 20 February 2026, granting temporary

injunction in favor of the Petitioner, and thereby rejected the




                                      1/6
Sonali Mane                                                     40-WP-9374-2026.docx



Petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil

Procedure Code,1908.


3.            The facts giving rise to the present Petition, in brief, are as

follows:

                The dispute pertains to two properties forming part of the

estate bearing Survey No. 163, 4, Nehru Marg (old Bunglow No. 4,

Prince of Wales Road) Village Ghorpadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.

The Said Suit Property comprises three rooms admeasuring 626.25 sq.

ft., enclosed pavements admeasuring 350 sq. ft. and open ground/access

area admeasuring 3,467 sq. ft. The Petitioner was inducted therein as a

monthly tenant by the late Maj. Damodar V. Panse under the MOU

dated 27 January 1994, and the said tenancy is admitted by the

Respondents. The Petitioner had also advanced an interest-free repair

loan of Rs.36,500/-, adjustable against rent, and carried out repairs to

the premises. The adjoining second property, namely, Suit Property-A,

comprises a garden admeasuring approximately 3,000 sq. ft. The said

property was permitted to be used by the Petitioner by the late landlord

in 1994. The Petitioner claims to have remained in continuous, open

and undisturbed possession thereof since then, having landscaped the

garden and installed a recycled PMT bus/caravan, a garden swing, tent

and fencing with two entry points.


                                       2/6
Sonali Mane                                                 40-WP-9374-2026.docx




              The late Maj. Damodar V. Panse died in 2020, whereafter

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 became the holders of the occupancy rights.

The Petitioner asserts his possession over both properties and submits

that he remained in undisturbed possession thereof for more than three

decades, until December 2025-January 2026, when persons allegedly

acting on behalf of the Respondents threatened his family and

subsequently entered the premises, allegedly damaging the fencing,

garden, CCTV cameras and water connection, and issuing threats. An

FIR was registered on 8 January 2026. Apprehending forcible

dispossession, the Petitioner instituted R.C.S. No. 16 of 2026 and

sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the

CPC. By order dated 20 February 2026, the Small Causes Court

restrained the Respondents from dispossessing or disturbing the

Petitioner’s possession of both properties, except by due process of law.

However, by the impugned order dated 7 July 2026, the District Court

has allowed the Respondents’ appeal and set aside the said injunction,

giving rise to the present petition.

4.     The Learned counsel for the Petitioner challenges the impugned

order on the ground that the Petitioner is in undisputed possession of

both the properties and the order of injunction in favor of Petitioner



                                       3/6
Sonali Mane                                                       40-WP-9374-2026.docx



shall have not been interfered with. The Petitioner relies upon the

MOU dated 27 January 1994 to claim his tenancy rights.



5.       I have perused the documents, i.e. the Memorandum of

Understanding dated 27 January 1994. The Petitioner relies upon this

particular document to assert his right over the suit property,

paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, which are noted below:


              10.      It is specifically agreed between the Parties hereto that
              only the part of the outhouse and a portion of the open ground
              for gardening purposes and for access of road (more
              particularly described in the Schedule written hereunder) is let
              out by the Present landlord to the Tenant and the Present
              Tenant shall not have any right over the adjoining premises or
              open ground and garden owned by the Present Land-lord.
              Further the tenant is permitted to enclose the aforesaid portion
              of open ground by erecting a fencing around it at his own cost.

              11.      The present tenant undertakes not to disturb the
              possession and enjoyment of the present landlord in respect of
              the area around and Garden of the Present Landlord.


6.        The Suit Property - A, which is referred to in Clauses 10 and 11

of the MOU dated 27 January 1994, is in possession of the Respondent

and not of the Petitioner. The Petitioner may have some permissive

right to use the said property. However, the Clauses 10 and 11

particularly indicate that the Petitioner shall not disturb the possession



                                        4/6
Sonali Mane                                                    40-WP-9374-2026.docx



of the landlords, i.e. the Respondents herein. Since the Petitioner relies

upon this document i.e. MOU dated 27 January 1994 to assert his right

over the suit property, he cannot plead contra to Clauses 10 and 11 of

the same document.



7.            The Petitioner is not in possession of the Suit Property-A, as

such, no injunction can follow against the true owner of the property,

who is also in possession of the Suit Property-A. No error in the

Appellate Court order as regard Suit Property - A is concerned.


8.       Learned counsel appearing for Respondents submits that, insofar

the suit property is concerned, he has filed suit for eviction of the

Petitioner and he would proceed in accordance with law for eviction of

the Petitioner, from the suit property.



9.       In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing

for the Respondents/landlord as regards the suit property is concerned

that, he would follow due process of law for eviction of the present

Petitioner/Tenant. The impugned order of the Appellate Court with

regard to the suit property stands modified accordingly. However, it is

clarified that, this will not bar the Respondents/landlord from filing any

complaint before any statutory authority for violation of any statutory



                                       5/6
Sonali Mane                                               40-WP-9374-2026.docx



provisions by the tenant or any unauthorized construction carried out

by or on behalf of the Petitioner/Tenant. The said statement is

accepted. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

[




                                          [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]




                                  6/6