Bombay High Court
Latish Gopat Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:4163-DB 11 IAL 3061-26.DOC
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
LAXMI SUBHASH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SONTAKKE
Date: 2026.02.13
11:41:16 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3061 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2025
Latish Gopal Shetty & Anr. ...Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Kamlakar Shantaram Mathe ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Jaydeep Deo a/w Onkar Gawade for the Applicant and for the Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 in Petition.
Mr. Vivek Katawala a/w Ratna Jaiswal for Petitioner.
Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Sayali Apte a/w Murlidharan Kalathil for Respondent-MHADA.
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ranish Mehta for Respondent No.3.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 10th FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.
1. This is an Interim Application filed in the disposed of Petition No.
2217 of 2024 which came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 22 nd
December 2025, which reads thus:-
P.C.
1. These two writ petitions are filed seeking reliefs in respect of the same
premises. We, therefore, find it convenient to dispose of both the petitions
by a common order.
Page 1 of 6
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 :::
11 IAL 3061-26.DOC
2. At the outset, we may observe that the premises in question are claimed
by the petitioner to be in his possession as a tenant of respondent nos.4
and 5, namely, Latish Gopal Shetty and Ramkrishna Gopal Shetty. A civil
suit has been filed by the said landlords seeking eviction of the petitioner,
being R.A.E. Suit No. 270/384 of 2006, before the Small Causes Court,
Mumbai. Also a suit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a
declaration that the petitioner is a tenant/member of respondent no.3
society, being R.A.D. Suit No. 1645 of 2012, also before the Small Causes
Court, Mumbai. Both suits are stated to be pending.
3. In the meantime, during the pendency of the suits, the building in
question has been taken up for redevelopment. The petitioner apprehends
an eviction in respect of premises in which the petitioner is running a
hair-cutting salon under the name and style 'Darbar Hair Cutting', as the
redevelopment needs to proceed further. It is in these circumstances, the
present petitions are filed praying for the following reliefs:-
Writ Petition (L.) No. 39590 of 2025
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate
writ to the Respondents No.1 & 2 and to direct them to
declare the Petitioner as the occupant of the suit shop no.3
i.e. Shop No.3, situated at C.S. No.19/76, Dadar Naigoan
Division, Jenabhai Hassan Ali CHS Building, Building
No.99E, Gokuldas Pasta Road and Dadasaheb Phalke Road,
Dadar, (C.R.) Mumbai 400 014, as per D.C.P.R. 2034
Regulation 33 (7);
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ
Petition, the Respondents No.1 & 2 may be direct to
reconsider their letter dated 19.9.2024 and the Remark
"Kept in Abeyance" may be deleted and to declare the
Petitioner as the occupant of the suit shop no.3;
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition,
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take appropriate
action against the Respondents No.4 & 5 for fraud and
cheating by submitting the false Affidavit dated 30.12.2023
to MHADA;
(d) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses
(b) & (c) as above;
(e) Any such other and further reliefs as the nature and the
circumstances of the case may require be granted.
Writ Petition No. 2217 of 2025
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate
writ to the Respondents and to restrain the Respondents
No.1 & 2 not to change their records to any other persons
Page 2 of 6
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 :::
11 IAL 3061-26.DOC
including the Respondents No.5 & 6 in respect of the shop
no.3 i.e. Shop No.3, situated at C.S. No.19/76, Dadar
Naigoan Division, Jenabhai Hassan Ali CHS Building,
Building No.99E, Gokuldas Pasta Road and Dadasaheb
Phalke Road, Dadar, (C.R.) Mumbai 400 014;
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ
Petition, the Respondents No.1 & 2 may be restrain to
change their records to any other persons including the
Respondents No.5 & 6 in respect of the shop no.3 i.e. Shop
No.3, situated at C.S. No.19/76, Dadar Naigoan Division,
Jenabhai Hassan Ali CHS Building, Building No.99E,
Gokuldas Pasta Road and Dadasaheb Phalke Road, Dadar,
(C.R.) Mumbai 400 014;
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition,
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the
Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 to sign and to execute any
Agreements/consent from or other documents for the
permanent alternative accommodation/transit
accommodation/rent in lieu of the shop no.3 i.e. Shop
No.3, situated at C.S. No.19/76, Dadar Naigoan Division,
Jenabhai Hassan Ali CHS Building, Building No.99E,
Gokuldas Pasta Road and Dadasaheb Phalke Road, Dadar,
(C.R.) Mumbai 400 014, in favour of the Respondents No.5
& 6.
(d) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses
(b) &
(c) as above;
(e) Any such other and further reliefs as the nature and the
circumstances of the case may require be granted."
4. At the outset, on behalf of the landlords, Mr. Deo, learned counsel,
made a statement that his clients are ready and willing to enter into a
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner,
however, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the pending suits. In
our opinion, the stand taken on behalf of the landlords is fair. We are,
thus, of the opinion that the petitioner ought not to obstruct the
redevelopment and needs to enter into a Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreement, with a specific clause therein that the
agreement shall be subject to further orders/judgment as may be rendered
in the pending suits before the Small Causes Court.
5. Mr. Lad, learned counsel who represents MHADA, submitted that the
MHADA cannot be averse to the aforesaid arrangement, and that, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the
dispute on tenancy rights being pending before the Small Causes Court,
the stand taken by the landlords being fair is his submission. 6. In this
Page 3 of 6
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 :::
11 IAL 3061-26.DOC
view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitions can be
conveniently disposed of, as firstly, the petitioner cannot obstruct the
redevelopment, and secondly, the rights of the petitioner would be fairly
protected by the landlords entering into a Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner. The petitions are
accordingly disposed of in terms of the following order:-
ORDER
i. The Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement be entered into between the petitioner, the landlords/respondent nos.4 and 5, and the developer within a period of 15 days from today.
ii. Within 10 days from the date of execution of such agreement, the petitioner shall vacate the premises and make way for the redevelopment. iii. All rights and contentions of the parties in the pending suits are expressly kept open.
iv. Needless to observe that MHADA would take an appropriate position accordingly.
v. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. vi. The interim applications would not survive and are accordingly disposed of."
2. The aforesaid order passed by this Court was assailed by the original Petitioner Mr. Kamlakar Shantaram Mate before the Supreme Court in SLP 806- 807 of 2026 in which the Supreme Court on 12 th January 2026 passed the following order:-
"1. Having heard Mr.Navin Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chirag M.Shroff, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order(s).
2. Needless to say that the pending suit will be decided uninfluenced by any of the observations made either by the High Court in the impugned order(s) or by this Court in the present order.
3. With these observations, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."Page 4 of 6
Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 ::: 11 IAL 3061-26.DOC
3. The apprehension expressed by the Applicant, as also by certain members in respect of the society/premises, which are the subject matter of redevelopment, is that the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) ought to be executed strictly in terms of the observations contained in paragraph 6(i) of the said order. It is the Applicant's contention that in the PAAA proposed to be executed as referred to in the order passed by this Court the original Petitioner, Kamlakar Shantaram Mate may be declared and held to be the owner of the alternate premises cannot be the position in view of the order dated 22 nd December 2025, particularly from what was observed in paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 thereof.
4. It is further contended on behalf of the Applicant that eviction proceedings are presently pending before the Small Causes Court. In this background, it is urged that the draft PAAA circulated cannot contain any clause by which the Applicant's rights stand extinguished or the Applicant is not recognized as the owner, especially when the proceedings are sub judice before the Small Causes Court.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the contents of the PAAA, we find that the agreement categorically records that it is being entered into subject to the outcome of the pending suit filed by the Applicant before the Small Causes Court. Thus, the respective rights and contentions of the parties remain intact which are being adjudicated before the Small Causes Court, hence the agreement certainly is to operate subject to the final Page 5 of 6 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 ::: 11 IAL 3061-26.DOC decision in the said pending proceedings. Consequently in such circumstances, there is no question of any ownership rights of the applicant being transferred or recognised under the PAAA as apprehended by the applicant. This position is also in consonance with paragraph 2 of the order dated 12 th January 2026, as observed by the Supreme Court and noted by us hereinabove.
6. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the rights of the parties are the subject matter of adjudication before the Small Causes Court, and the agreement shall necessarily be entered into subject to such adjudication. The parties shall abide by the observations made in the order dated 22 nd December 2025, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, particularly the observations contained in paragraph 2 thereof.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Interim Application is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 6 of 6 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:18:04 :::