Bombay High Court
Sajjanraj Payarelal Kothari (Orig. ... vs Larsen And Toubro Limited (Orig. ... on 27 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:15268
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2026.03.31
17:17:52
+0530 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2010
Larsen and Toubro Limited, a ]
company within the meaning of the ]
Companies Act 1956 and having it's ]
registered office at L & T - House, ]
Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001. ] ... Revision Applicant
(Org. Defendant No.1)
Versus
1) Mr. Kantilal Champalal Kothari ]
2) Mr. Premchand Champalal Kothari ]
3) Mr. Ramniklal Champalal Kothari ]
4) Mrs. Sunita M. Mehta ]
since deceased through ]
4A. Manish Premchand Kothari ]
4B. Snehal Subodh Runwal ]
5) Mrs. Khamadevi Moolchand Kothari ]
(Deceased) ]
6) Mr. Sajjanraj Pyarelal Kothari ]
since deceased through ]
6A. Saurabh Sajjanraj Kothari ]
6B. Madhubala Sajjanraj Kothari ]
6C. Shilpa Jiten Patel ]
7) Mrs. Saraswati Pyarelal Kothari ]
8) Mofatraj Pukhraj Munot ]
9) Mr. Subhash Mangilal Kothari ]
10) Mr. Amar P. Munot (deceased) ]
10(a) Smt. Chandra Amar Munot ]
10(b) Mr. Anuj Amar Munot ]
10(c) Mr. Ajay Amar Munot ]
10(d) Mrs. Riddhi Tushar Singhvi ]
10E PLS Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ]
a Company registered under ]
the Companies Act ]
Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 056 ] ... Respondents
Husen 1
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2015
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2010
Sajjanraj Pyarelal Kothari ... Applicant
(Org. Respondent No.6)
In the matter between
Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai ... Revision Applicant
V/s.
Kantilal Champalal Kothari & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 174 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2010
Kantilal Champalal Kothari & Ors. ... Applicants
(Org. Respondent Nos.1 to 9)
In the matter between
Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai ... Revision Applicant
V/s.
Kantilal Champalal Kothari & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1959 OF 2019
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2010
Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai ..Applicant/Rev. Applicant
V/s.
Kantilal Champalal Kothari & Ors. ... Respondents
***
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ankit Lohia, Mr.
Bomi Patel, Ms. Tamanna Tavadia, Mr. Sunil Tilokchandani, Mr.
Sachin Chandarana, Mr. Himalaya Chaudhari, Ms. Divya Barot i/b
Husen 2
::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Applicant.
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Vishal Kanade, Mr. Omprakash Vaishnaw, Mr. Pravin
Dhage, Mr. Pramod Vora i/b. Pramodkumar & Co. for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9.
Ms. Neha Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Anand Poojari, Mr. Reet Jain i/b. S. J.
Joshi & Co. for the Respondent No.10E.
Mr. Suneet Tyagi for the Respondent Nos. 15A to 15D (through VC).
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 5th DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th MARCH, 2026
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
JUDGMENT :
1. This civil revision application is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('the CPC', for short) by Defendant No.1 challenging Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2010 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No. 90 of 2007, by which the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2007 passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) in T.E. & R. Suit No.32/35 of 2001 is set aside. The Appellate Bench decreed the said suit with costs directing the Revision Applicant to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to Respondent Nos.1 to
9. Enquiry for mesne profits is ordered.
2. The Revision Applicant is tenant and Respondent Nos.1 to 10 are landlords. Respondent No.10 is original Defendant No.2 -
Husen 3 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc Co-owner. The suit is filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ('MRC Act', for short). The plot of land admeasuring 3633 sq. yards equivalent to 3038.75 sq. mtrs. together with a bungalow consisting of basement, ground floor and 1 st floor, servants Quarters and toilets situated at 54 (Old No.28) Pali Hill Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai - 400 050 is the subject matter of the said suit which is hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises' for short. The suit premises is part of a larger property bearing C.T.S No. C- 1374 to C-1377 and C-1403 admeasuring about 4016 sq. mtrs (4803 sq. yards) with structure standing thereon.
3. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this case, are as under:
3.1 On 27.01.1961, the predecessor in title of the Respondents-landlords executed lease deed in favour of the Revision Applicant in respect of suit premises for a period of 12 years from 01.01.1958 to 31.12.1970.
3.2. On 31.03.1971, the Respondents-landlords purchased the larger property by a registered conveyance.
3.3 The Respondents-landlords issued notice dated 21.08.1996 through Advocate calling upon the Revision Applicant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit premises.
3.4 On 30.05.2000 (after coming into force of the MRC Act), again a notice was issued by the Respondents-landlords through Advocate to the Revision Applicant to vacant and hand over the suit premises.Husen 4 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc 3.5 On 02.02.2001, the Respondents-Plaintiffs addressed a letter to Defendant No.2 Mr. Amar Munot stating that they have decided to file a suit against Revision Applicant but Defendant No.2 is not co-operating as much as he should and therefore Respondents- Plaintiffs have decided that in case Defendant No.2 does not sign the plaint within 7 days from the receipt of the letter, Defendant No.2 shall be joined as Defendant, however, no relief will be claimed against him.
3.6 Sometime in March 2001, the Respondents-Plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking eviction contending inter alia as under. That the Revision Applicant-tenant was a monthly tenant duly protected under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which is repealed by the new Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, that MRC Act, 1999 came into force w.e.f. 31.03.2000 and therefore, the Revision Applicant being a company having paid up share capital more than Rs. 1 crores, the protection under Rent Act, is not available by virtue of 3(1)(b) of MRC Act. That the tenancy has been duly terminated vide notice dated 21.08.1996, receipt of which is not disputed. That therefore, the relation between the parties is governed by general law i.e. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and since the tenancy was created for residential purpose, it is terminable by serving 15 days' notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. That the lease has expired long back and it is also duly terminated. That therefore, the Respondents-landlord are entitled for possession and mesne profits.
3.7 On 21.04.2001, Defendant No.2-Mr. Amar Munot Husen 5 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc executed agreement for sale in favour of Revision Applicant, agreeing to sell 7% undivided share in the larger property.
3.8 On 30.08.2001, Defendant No. 2- Amar Munot, executed conveyance in favour of Revision Applicant, selling his 7% undivided share in the larger property.
3.9 On 01.10.2002, The Revision Applicant-Defendant No. 1 filed written statement contending inter alia that it is in occupation of suit premises since 1947. That by registered conveyance deed dated 30.08.2001, it has purchased 7% undivided share from Defendant No. 2 in the suit premises and thus, has become co-owner with the Plaintiffs and stepped into shoes of Defendant No. 2. That therefore, the question of seeking possession does not survive. That interest of Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 have merged and therefore, arrears of mesne profits or future mesne profits , does not arise.
3.10 On 09.07.2002 Defendant No. 2-Amar Munot filed written statement supporting and adopting the written statement filed by the Revision Applicant, praying that the suit should be dismissed.
3.11 On 20.07.2002, issues were framed. Issue was framed regarding the Revision Applicant has become co-owner and accordingly whether relationship of landlord-tenant subsists.
3.12 Sometime in September, 2006, plaint was amended to state that Plaintiff No. 6 has been appointed as Executor of the estate of Pyarelal Kothari and name of Plaintiff No. 7, who expired, was Husen 6 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc deleted.
3.13 On 13.10.2006, Defendant No. 1 - Revision Applicant filed additional written statement contending inter alia that the notices issued by Plaintiffs are not issued by all the heirs of late Pyarelal and that in pre-emption suit filed by some of the Plaintiffs, they have admitted that Defendant No. 2 is entitled to 7.5% undivided share. That Defendant No. 2 has not given his consent for sending two notices and for filing the present suit. That Defendant No. 2 has objected to the filing of suit that it is not filed with consent of all co-owners. That after demise of Plaintiff No. 7 - Saraswati, her legal heirs have not joined as a party to the suit. That Partition Suit No. 2467 of 2002 is pending which includes suit premises.
3.14 On 19.10.2006, Defendant No. 2 Amar Munot filed additional written statement contending inter alia that the said two notices are not given by all the heirs of Mr. Pyarelal and he has not given consent for writing and serving two notices and he has not given consent for filing suit. That he has sold his undivided 7% share out of 7.5% share to Revision Applicant-Defendant No. 1 and therefore he still continues to be the co-owner to the extent of 0.5% share. That he does not want the suit to be filed or continued. He prayed for dismissal of suit for failure to join necessary parties as also for want of consent of all co-owners.
3.15 In view of additional written statements, two additional issues were framed, namely, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? and whether the suit is maintainable in view of Husen 7 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc amended pleadings?
3.16 On 10.01.2007, the learned Judge of the Trial Court dismissed the said suit.
3.17 In March 2007, the Respondents - Plaintiffs filed the said appeal before the Appellate Bench.
3.18 On 15.02.2010, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court allowed the appeal, thereby quashing and setting aside the decree of dismissal, thereby directing Revision Applicant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The Appellate Court further directed an inquiry into mesne profits from 30.05.2000 till delivery of possession for payment of 92.5% of mesne profits to the Respondents-Plaintiffs.
3.19 In these circumstances, the present Civil Revision application is filed. During pendency of the revision application, various parties have died and their legal heirs are brought on the record.
3.20 It is submitted on behalf of the Revision-Applicant that during pendency of the present Revision Application, inquiry into mesne profits was considered by this Court and the Revision Applicant was directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs per month as interim rent, and thereafter, the Respondents-Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 8,37,16,865/- and the monthly interim rent was directed to be disbursed amongst co-owners directly.
Husen 8 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc 3.21 According to Revision Applicant, on 26.10.2018, the co- owners had moved a notice of motion for urgent ad-interim relief, which was not pressed; thereafter, Mr. Ramniklal Kothari transferred his 22.5% undivided share in the larger property in favour of the Revision Applicant. Therefore, as on today, the Revision Applicant is co-owner of the suit property to the extent of 29.5%.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dwarkadas appearing for the Revision Applicant submitted as under.
4.1 That both the Trial Court and Appellate Court has held that the Defendant No. 2 has objected to issuance of suit notices and filing of the suit and therefore, there is concurrent finding about Defendant No. 2 objecting to the filing and continuation of suit and the same is binding and it is not open for the Respondents-Plaintiffs to question the finding of fact before Revisional Court.
4.2 He submitted that the question of law involved in the present revision application is whether a co-owner can institute and maintain a suit for eviction of tenant if the other co-owner objects.
4.3 He relied on following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts to give background of the law with regard to the question of maintainability of an eviction suit where a co-owner is objecting.
(i) Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 184.
(ii) Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 814.Husen 9 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
(iii) Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (Dead) LRS & Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 444.
(iv) Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16.
(v) India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRS Savitri Agarwalla (Smt) & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 178.
(vi) Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC
724.
(vii) Mangal Builders & Enterprises Limited & Anr. Vs. Williamson Magor & Company Ltd. & Anr. 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2133.
(viii) Jainuddin Abdul Rehman Shaikh Vs. Sitaram Damodar Varvadkar and Ors. 1980 SCC OnLine Bom 129.
(ix) V. Prabha & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kuljit Singh Chadha & Anr.
2006 SCC OnLine Bom 858.
(x) H. Vasanji & Company Vs. Chandrakumari Harnamsingh Chowhan (Civil Revision Application No. 76 of 2016 decided on 13.10.2016 Bombay High Court).
(xi) Kalawati Ashok Kumar Parmar Vs. Sharad Dattatraya Tapray 2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 518.
(xii) Sharfuddin & Ors. Vs. Bibi Khatija & Anr. 1987 SCC OnLine Pat
136.
(xiii) Hameeda Begam Vs. Champa Bai Jain & Ors. 2004(1) M.P.L.J.
50. 4.4 Relying on Mangal Builders (Supra), it is submitted that in the said case, a co-owner had objected to maintainability of suit and the Trial Court had held that objection about maintainability should be decided in the course of trial. However, in appeal, the High Court had taken a different view holding the suit to be not maintainable and ultimately, that view is confirmed by the Supreme Court. He submitted therefore that in the present case, since the Defendant No. 2 has objected to issuance of notices and filing of suit, the suit ought to have been dismissed and as such, the impugned order needs to be set aside.
Husen 10 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
5. On the other hand, Mr. Aspi Chinoy appearing for the Respondents-landlords submitted as under.
5.1 That the Defendant No. 2 Amar Munot was joined as Defendant No. 2 because he was not co-operating as much as he should in the matter of signing the plaint and not because he was objecting to filing of the suit.
5.2 He submitted that Defendant No. 2 has sold his 7% interest in the suit property during pendency of the suit but even after selling the 7% interest, Defendant No. 2 in his first written statement did not allege or contend that he had objected to filing of the suit. He submitted that therefore in the original issues that were framed, there was no issue framed as to whether Defendant No. 2 had objected to filing of suit and whether the suit was accordingly not maintainable.
5.3 He submitted that in additional written statement, Defendant No. 2 only stated that all heirs of Pyarelal have not given their consent and Defendant No. 2 has not given his consent for filing the suit and does not want the suit to be continued. He submitted that this contention was taken for the first time in additional written statement and even the additional written statement does not allege that Defendant No. 2 objected to filing the suit in 2001.
5.4 He submitted that it is settled position of law that consent of other co-owner is assumed as taken unless it is shown that co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and suit was filed in spite of such disagreement. He relied on India Umbrella (Supra) in Husen 11 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc support of this contention. He submitted that non-cooperation by Defendant No. 2, does not mean that Defendant No. 2 was objecting to filing of the suit. In this respect, relying on V. Prabha (Supra), he submitted that refusal to sign plaint could be for various reasons.
5.5 He submitted that the Judgment of Mangal Builders (Supra), deals with a case where one of the co-owners had objected to filing of eviction suit and such objection was not based on any transfer of the objector's interest which is nothing but an objection for a collateral purpose. He submitted that in paragraph No.6 of Mangal Builders (Supra), the Supreme Court itself has clarified that the objection of co-owner in India Umbrella (Supra) was in the course of trial of suit and in a situation where suit property had changed hands. Therefore, the situation in Mangal Builders (Supra) was completely different.
5.6 He submitted that in the facts of the present case the stand taken by Defendant No. 2 was clearly in the light of sale of his 7% interest in the property which has taken place during pendency of the suit and failure to consent or sign on the plaint was clearly not bona fide and it was for a collateral purpose. He submitted that failure of co-owner to consent or sign the plaint for a collateral purpose cannot affect the maintainability of suit by other co-owners.
5.7 He submitted that the Respondents-Plaintiffs are not asking for re-appreciation of evidence so far as the factum of objection by Defendant No. 2 is concerned, if at all it can be held that Defendant No. 2 has objected. However, it is settled position of law Husen 12 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc that when the decree is completely in favour of a party (Respondents- Plaintiffs), they need not file cross objections but can still maintain an argument assailing adverse findings/issues recorded against them. He relied on following judgments in support of this contention.
(i) Rajendra Muralidhar Kadam & Ors. Vs. Prakash Vitthal Rao (Civil Revision Application No. 118 of 2019 decided on 18.06.2019 Bombay High Court).
(ii) Govind Bhayaram Bamniya & Ors. Vs. Eknath alias Joseph Dominic Koli & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 9001.
(iii) M/s. Musaji Mohamadali Master & Anr. Vs. Mr. Gulamali Dadabhai Amreliwala 2005(2) All MR 320.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully and perused the record.
7. The question to be decided in the present case is whether a co- owner can institute and maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant if the other co-owner objects during pendency of the suit and such objection is apparently due to sell of share in suit premises in favour of tenant. This will have to be decided in the facts and circumstances emerging in the present matter.
8. Various judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The law regarding whether Respondent can assail an adverse finding on issue without cross objection, is beyond doubt in the light of Judgments of Rajendra Muralidhar Kadam (Supra), Govind Bhayaram Bamniya (Supra) & M/s. Musaji Mohamadali Master Husen 13 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc (Supra). The Respondent can certainly, without filing cross objection, assail the adverse finding on an issue or otherwise adverse finding against the Respondent while supporting the decree which is entirely in favour of the Respondent. In the present case, the decree is in favour of the Respondents and therefore the Respondents can assail the adverse finding.
10. Let us now consider, in short, how the the Appellate Court has considered the material on record. The Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence has held as under.
10.1 That Plaintiffs' notice validly terminated the tenancy of the Revision Applicant.
10.2 That possession of Revision Applicant is wrongful.
10.3 That suit is not bad for non-joinder of legal representative of one of the co-owners.
10.4 That suit is maintainable and Revision Applicant cannot defeat the claim for possession and mesne profits on the strength of conveyance from one of the owners and objection of Defendant No.2.
10.5 That Respondent-Plaintiffs are entitled to decree of possession and mesne profits.
10.6 That Defendant No. 2 is still having 0.5% undivided share in the larger property.
10.7 That Defendant No. 2 had received a letter sent by the Husen 14 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc Plaintiffs prior to filing a suit and since Defendant No. 2 did not join the Plaintiffs in filing suit, he has been impleaded as Defendant No. 2.
10.8. That Defendant No. 2 by filing written statement had adopted the written statement of Revision Applicant and then contended that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and had objected to the suit and finally prayed for dismissal of suit.
10.9 That the result of the pre-emption claim amongst owners is that the transfer of 7% share of Defendant No. 2 in favour of Revision Applicant is subject to the decision in the pre-emption suit, which is presently pending in City Civil Court.
10.10 That question is whether Defendant No. 2, who is left with only 0.5% share in the suit property can legally raise objection to the filing and continuation of the suit and can defeat the claim made by Respondents-Plaintiffs.
10.11 The Appellate Court has considered the judgments of Jainuddin Vs. Sitaram (supra), Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath (supra), Kanta Goel Vs. B. P. Patnak (supra), Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (supra), Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (supra) and Hameeda Begam Vs. Champabai Jain (supra). After considering the above said judgments, the Appellate Court has held as under :
"51. It appears that a distinction is made between case where there is no objection by a co-owner to another co-owner's eviction suit and a case where an objection is raised by a co-owner for filing Husen 15 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc eviction suit. But it is to be pointed out that in none of the cases the Apex Court laid down that if an objection is raised by one co-owner to the eviction proceeding of another co-owner the suit must fail even if such objection is not bona fide. After discussing various decisions of Apex Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain's case (supra) what the Apex Court held that such objection is a relevant fact and nothing more."
[Emphasis supplied] 10.12 Therefore, it is clear that, the Appellate Court has considered whether the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 to the present eviction suit is bona fide and can be sustained so as to defeat the claim of Respondents-Plaintiffs seeking eviction. After going through various judgments discussed above, in my view, the Appellate Court was correct is considering this aspect.
10.13 Considering the first and second written statement and tenor of the objection raised by Defendant No. 2, the Appellate Court in paragraph No. 52, has concluded that the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 is 'just to benefit the Revision Applicant-Defendant No. 1 who has paid him valuable consideration and therefore Defendant No. 2 is obliging Revision Applicant-Defendant No. 1'. The Appellate Court has held that the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 is not beneficial to him and therefore, such objection is not legal but technical with ulterior motive of defeating the claim of Plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has held that therefore, the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 is not bona fide. The Appellate Court has further held that for sustaining such objection, at least, the claim made by Husen 16 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc Plaintiffs must affect his right. For these reasons the Appellate Court has held that the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 will not be sustainable in law. The Appellate Court has thereafter in paragraph No. 55 held that so far as the absence of consent by 'some of the co- owners (other co-owners)' is concerned there is nothing to show that they have raised objection and as such, except Defendant No. 2, there is no objection of other co-owners, who has joined the suit as Plaintiffs.
11. From the record, following factual aspects are emerging.
11.1 It is not disputed that by registered conveyance deed dated 30.08.2001, during pendency of the suit, the Defendant No. 2 has sold his undivided 7% share in the suit property in favour of Revision Applicant-tenant for valuable consideration. Even the agreement to sell dated 12.04.2001 is during pendency of the suit. 11.2 After selling 7% share to Revision Applicant-tenant, Defendant No. 2 filed his first written statement.
11.3 Initially, no issue was framed whether Defendant No. 2 had objected to filing of the suit or whether the suit was maintainable.
11.4 In additional written statement, the Defendant No. 2, apart from stating that all heirs of Pyarelal have not given consent for filing suit, contended that Defendant No. 2 has not given consent for filing suit and Defendant No. 2 does not want the suit to be filed or continued.
Husen 17 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc
12. Therefore in the facts of this case, it is clear that Defendant No. 2 had not objected while filing of the suit and the objection is raised for the first time in additional written statement filed during pendency of the suit. This objection raised during pendency of the suit is admittedly after sale of 7% share in the suit property and therefore the objection is a 'tainted objection' because share was sold by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Revision Applicant-tenant.
13. In the light of above peculiar facts, the closest facts exist in only two of the above list of case-law relied upon by the Revision Applicant. They are India Umbrella (supra) and Mangal Builders (supra). It is not therefore necessary to labour on other caselaw. Admittedly, the learned judge of the Appellate Court did not have advantage of considering Mangal Builders (supra) as the same is rendered on 06.04.2017 and impugned Judgment is delivered on 15.02.2010, when India Umbrella (supra) was already rendered on 05.01.2004. Be that as it may.
14. In India Umbrella (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering whether one co-owner may withdraw consent midway to the prejudice of other co-owners and what is the nature of interest of co-owner. In that case, during pendency of appeal, one co-owner transferred her share in favour of one of the tenants. Paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the said judgment are most relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy. They read as under :
"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in Husen 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc the property generally owned by the co-owners. (See Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai , SCC para 25.) This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co-owners. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the co- owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co- owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law.
Xxx
8. The decree, insofar as the other tenant and sub-tenants i.e. the appellants in CA No. 5358 of 1996 are concerned, has to be sustained. The partners of the other tenant firm i.e. M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Company (appellant in CA No. 5357 of 1996) have purchased the property pendente lite and therefore they cannot be allowed to take a stand contrary to the one taken by their predecessor-in-interest and to the prejudice of the other plaintiff whose rights they have not purchased. Their filing an application that they were not interested in securing eviction of the other tenant is in the facts and circumstances of the case immaterial and irrelevant."Husen 19 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::
CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc (emphasis supplied)
15. The above facts are very similar to the case in hand, because here, in the present civil revision application, the Defendant No. 2 (co-owner landlord) has transferred his undivided share in favour of Revision-Applicant (tenant) pendente lite.
16. In Mangal Builders (Supra), factual matrix is captured in paragraph 2 which reads as under :
"2. The petitioners are two out of three co-owners who had instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent No. 1-tenant. The third co-owner (Respondent No. 2 herein), who is defendant No. 2 in the suit, in his written statement, objected to the eviction and explicitly stated that suit is without its consent. The trial Court while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant No. 2 thought it proper to hold that the objection raised with regard to maintainability should be decided in the course of the trial of the suit"
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangal Builders (Supra) has considered India Umbrella (Supra) about which it is observed as under :
"6. The closest decision on the point is in the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs. Savitri Agarwalla(Smt), which, however, does not answer the question fully as the objection of the co-owner in India Umbrella (supra) was in Husen 20 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc the course of the trial of the suit and in a situation where the suit property had changed hands."
[Emphasis supplied]
18. Therefore it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has treated the peculiar facts of India Umbrella (supra) as different. 'Objection during course of Trial due to suit property changing hands' is the differentiating factor. In Mangal Builders (supra), there is nothing to indicate that the objection of the co-owner was owing to sell / change of hands of suit property, either earlier or pendente lite. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considering the objection of co- owner which is 'tainted with the collateral purpose' because share in the property was sold.
19. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, this differentiating factor brings the present case closest to India Umbrella (supra) as a guideline to follow.
20. In that view of the matter, the consideration by the Appellate Court that the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 is not bona fide and the same is for collateral purpose, cannot be faulted. Failure by a co-owner to consent or sign the plaint or objection raised by co- owner during pendency of the suit, for such collateral purpose, cannot affect the maintainability of the suit filed by other co-owners.
21. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 during pendency of the suit is tainted with collateral purpose of sale of 7% share in favour of the Revision Applicant-tenant and therefore it cannot adversely affect maintainability of the suit. The suit as filed by Husen 21 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc Respondents-Plaintiffs is maintainable and decree passed by the Appellate Court of eviction cannot be faulted.
22. It is settled position of law that this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC has very limited jurisdiction. This Court can not re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a contrary conclusion. In paragraph 10 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav 1965 SCC OnLine SC 83 and paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HPCL Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78, the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court is well narrated. Following the same, unless the findings of the Appellate Court are found to be based on perverse appreciation and misreading of pleadings and evidence, so much so that, if allowed to stand, would amount to miscarriage of justice, this Court can not interfere.
23. The view taken by the Appellate Court is the most probable view. No perversity or misreading of pleadings / evidence is found. Therefore no interference is called for.
24. The Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Decree of eviction dated 15.02.2010 is confirmed. Since pending applications were not separately pressed, in view of dismissal of the revision application, all pending applications are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
25. At this stage, learned counsel for the Revision-Applicant seeks continuation of the interim stay to the eviction decree for a period of Husen 22 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 ::: CRA-312-2010(J) L&T C3.doc 12 weeks. Learned counsel for the Respondents-landlords opposes the request. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that Revision Applicant was protected during pendency of the Revision Application, decree of eviction is stayed for a period of 6 weeks from today, subject to continuation of undertaking dated 11.02.2011 given by the Revision-Applicant and further subject to the Revision-Applicant paying interim compensation as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.12.2024 and further subject to Revision-Applicant not creating third party interest in the suit premises.
26. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Husen 23 ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2026 21:47:07 :::