Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Vishandas Tahilramani vs Smt. Maya Devi Wd/O Late Lalchand ... on 12 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4478
1/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2062 OF 2018
Ashok s/o Vishandas Tahilramani
Aged : 48 Years; Occu : Business;
R/o 146, Near Ahuja Niwas, Jaripatka,
Nagpur.
[Since deceased through Legal
Heirs]
1. Prem s/o Ashok Tahilramani
Aged about : 29 Years; Occu :
Business;
R/o 146, Near Ajay Niwas, Main Road,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
2. Richa Santosh Talreja
D/o Ashok V. Tahilramani
Aged about : 35 Years; R/o Bhim
Chowk, Nagpur.
3. Bhavika (Neelam) Manish Sevani
d/o Ashok V. Tahilramani, Age : Major,
R/o Sindhu Nagar, Amravati, Tahsil
and District Amravati.
[Amended as per Court's order
dtd. 26.2.2020] ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Smt. Maya Devi wd/o Late Lalchand
Moryani, Aged about : 45 Years; Occu :
Landlady, Moryani Bhawan,
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Panchpaoli,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
2/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt
Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. R. M. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : FEBRUARY 13, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 12, 2026.
JUDGMENT
. Heard Dr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. R. M. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. In the present matter, Petitioner has filed Civil Application No. 1221/2025 for dismissal of the suit and for allowing the Writ Petition in view of the finding of the District Judge that the Petitioner is tenant. Civil Application No. 2294/2025 is filed for framing preliminary issue and dismissal of the suit. However, the record of the Petition shows that this Court, by order dated 8/7/2025, by considering the request of the Petitioner, it has been recorded that Civil Application No.1221/2025 will be heard and decided along with the Petition.
3. Taking into consideration the order of this Court dated 8/7/2025 and the fact that Petitioner and Respondent have 3/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt advanced their substantial arguments in the matter on all the issues, it will be proper to decide the Petition on merits.
4. The Petitioners takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 31/1/2007 passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 475/2002 and the Judgment and order dated 9/2/2018 passed by the District Judge-8, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 136/2007 and seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.
5. In the present Petition, subject matter is a "shop" in a building namely, 'Moryani Bhavan' consisting of two floors situated on Plot No. 688. In the present matter, for the sake of brevity, parties are referred as per their original nomenclature as 'Plaintiff' and 'Defendant' before the trial court.
6. In the present case, Plaintiff is the owner of suit shop situated in building 'Moryani Bhavan' consisting of two floors situated on Plot No. 688. On its ground floor on front side there are four shop blocks. In the family arrangement one shop was given to the Plaintiff, which is now in possession of the Defendant as licensee. According to the Plaintiff, shop was given on license to the 4/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt Defendant for a period of eleven months on license fee of Rs. 5184/- per month. The Memorandum of Leave and License Agreement was for the period from 1/4/2001 to 28/2/2002 executed between the parties. The Defendant agreed to pay the Corporation Tax separately. He also agreed to vacate the premises after expiry of license period and if he failed to vacate, then will pay 20% per annum increase on license fees. He also agreed to suffer damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day in the event his license being revoked and if he being failed to vacate the premises.
7. In the year 2002 the Plaintiff has filed the suit for possession, arrears of license fee, injunction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999') read with other relevant provisions of the said Act. The Plaintiff in his plaint has claimed the possession on the ground of nuisance, bona fide need and further the hardship which she is causing in the matter.
8. The Defendant has filed his written statement before the Small Causes Court, Nagpur. He has raised objection of tenability of the suit on the ground of revocation of license, as he is the tenant of 5/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt the Plaintiff not licensee. In addition to this, Defendant took the defence that no nuisance is caused to the Plaintiff nor there is any bona fide need to the Plaintiff in the matter. According to him, the Defendant will cause great hardship, if he is asked to vacate the premisses as he is running the business in the said shop for a long period.
9. In the background of the rival submissions of both the parties before the Small Causes Court, evidence was recorded. The Plaintiff in her evidence has reiterated the ground of nuisance, bona fide need and hardship caused to her and thereby seeks eviction of Defendant from premises. The Plaintiff was duly cross-examined before the trial court and an attempt was made to elicit from Plaintiff that there was no nuisance nor any bona fide need of the suit shop to the Plaintiff.
10. The Defendant was also entered into the witness-box by filing his affidavit. He was also cross-examined by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, it is brought on record that since 1990 the Defendant is having possession of the shop and running the business. It is also established on record that Defendant was served by notice of 6/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt Municipal Corporation in the year 1988-89 which demonstrates the fact that the shop was on rent prior to year 1987. So also the payment of rent was also elicited from the cross-examination of the Defendant. As such, from his evidence the Plaintiff has established on record the ground on which eviction was sought.
11. In the background of evidence, which was recorded by the parties, the trial court, by its Judgment dated 31/1/2007, allowed the suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant then filed the Appeal under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act before the District Judge vide RCA No. 136/2007. He has again raised the grounds that the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that suit was filed on the ground that Defendant is licensee. Whereas, Defendant was not the licensee but was a tenant. Hence, considering the averments in the plaint, suit itself was not tenable in the eye of law. In addition to this objection, he has raised many other grounds in the Appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, after considering the entire controversy raised before him, by the Judgment and order dated 9/2/2018 dismissed the Appeal.
12. Against the dismissal of Appeal, present Writ Petition 7/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt came to be filed before this Court. The prime issue which is raised before this Court is that from the pleadings of the Plaintiff in the plaint, he has categorically stated that the relationship of Plaintiff and Defendant are of a licensor and licensee. The defence of the Defendant was that he was a tenant. As such, suit itself was not tenable. But, both the courts below failed to understand the controversy in the matter. Therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.
13. This Court, after hearing both the sides in the matter, by order dated 31/1/2024 framed the issue, "Whether the Petitioner/Defendant is the tenant or licensee?", and referred the matter back to the First Appellate Court to answer the point framed by this Court as under :
"(a) In light of the pleadings of the plaintiff that the defendant is a licensee, whether the learned trial Court is right in holding that the defendant is a tenant? And if the answer is in negative, whether the suit under Section 16(1)(g) & (c) of the Act of 1999 is tenable against the defendant?"
14. In the light of direction issued by this Court, the First Appellate Court has decided the issue by its Judgment and order dated 29/4/2024. The learned First Appellate Court, by considering 8/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt the pleadings of both the parties, held that the Defendant is tenant of the Plaintiff. However, while deciding this issue, also decided the tenability of the suit, which was not directed to be decided by this Court. The Plaintiff, therefore, initially filed the review application before the District Judge, Nagpur, as the trial court has travelled beyond directions given by this Court. However, the First Appellate Court vide Judgment dated 23/9/2024 dismissed the review application. Against the said order of the First Appellate Court, rejecting review application, the Defendant filed Writ Petition No. 372/2024 before this Court. This Court, vide Judgment dated 23/4/2025 allowed the Writ Petition by holding that the learned First Appellate Court travelled beyond directions given by this Court. As such, the finding with regard to the Point No.2 that, whether the suit is tenable or not, is quashed and set aside.
15. In the background of this factual position, now the Petition is taken up for final disposal with consent of the parties.
16. In the present Petition, considering the controversy involved in the matter, it will be necessary to consider Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Section 16 of the Act 9/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt provides for recovery of possession to the landlord on the ground which are incorporated under this provision. Sub-clause (c) of this provision entitles the landlord to recover the possession if the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupier or has been convicted of using the premises for any other purpose as contemplated under clause - (c) of Section 16. Clause (g) of Section 16 entitles the landlord to recover the possession if the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or by any person for whose benefit the premises are held and this provision also entitled for possession if the landlord has proved the bona fide requirement for any purpose which differs case to case. From the averments made in the plaint of the Plaintiff, it is clear that he has filed the suit for eviction under Sub-clause (c) and (g) of Section 16.
17. Section 24 of this Act entitles the landlord to recover the possession of the premises in case the premises are rented as a licensee for residence. As such, to invoke the powers under Section 24 it is necessary to establish that the premises are rented for 10/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt residence. If it is not rented for residence, then the powers under Section 24 cannot be invoked in the matter.
18. In the light of these provisions, I have perused the averments of the Plaintiff in the suit for possession. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 13 of the Plaint, Plaintiff has specifically raised the ground of nuisance. In paragraph Nos.7 and 10 she has pleaded for bona fide need and in paragraph No.11 has pointed out the hardship which she would cause, if the premises are not vacated.
19. In the light of this averment in the plaint, though the Defendant has taken a stand that he is a tenant and the suit is filed on the ground of revocation of license, which is not tenable, he has replied to all the averments made in the suit. He has denied that he is causing any nuisance to the Plaintiff nor there is any hardship caused to the Plaintiff as well as bona fide need. As such, considering the written statement of the Defendant it is clear that he has understood the case of the Plaintiff and thereby with clear understanding he has denied all the averments made by the Plaintiff for seeking possession of the suit premises.
11/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt
20. In the light of the pleadings of both the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues :
(i) Whether the Defendant caused nuisance and annoyance to the Plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is in bona fide and reasonable need of the suit premises? and
(iii) To whom in comparative hardship is caused in the matter?
Both the parties have tendered their evidence on the issues framed by the trial court without any objection. The trial court, after recording the evidence and by considering the submission made before him, has answered all the issues in favour of the Plaintiff and thereby partly decreed the suit and Defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises on or before 10/3/2007.
21. The said Judgment was challenged by the Defendant before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, as per the settled principles of law, has reconsidered the issues framed by the trial court and appreciated the evidence which was recorded before the trial court and reached to the same conclusion that Defendant is causing nuisance to the Plaintiff, she is in bona fide need of the suit 12/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt premises and she is causing hardship in the matter. As such, there are concurrent findings of facts on all these issues. Both the courts below have found that Plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises.
22. The Defendant is harping on the issue before this Court that while deciding the suit, his submission is not properly dealt with by both the courts below. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 31/1/2024, has rightly referred the matter to the First Appellate Court to determine, 'whether the Defendant is a tenant or licensee'. According to the Defendant, as the first Appellate Court, by its Judgment has decided the issue and held that Defendant is a tenant, therefore, the suit which was filed in the capacity of licensor and licensee is itself not tenable in the eye of law, and accordingly, he seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.
23. In the present case, it will be necessary to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. V/s Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 555. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the object and purpose of 13/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt pleading is enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings, however, should receive a liberal construction; no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law. In such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings and not the form to determine the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. It is further held that once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event, absence of reproduction of the statutory expression in the pleading would not be fatal. As such, considering this Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is till date holding the field, same is applicable in the matter.
14/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt
24. In the present case, though the Defendant is right in stating that the application which was filed by the Plaintiff by treating their relation as licensor and licensee, however, if the entire averments in the plaint are looked into, it is clear that Plaintiff has claimed the possession on the grounds of bona fide need, hardship and nuisance which are the necessary ingredients for seeking eviction under Section 16 of the Act of 1999. So also both the parties have led evidence on these issues and both the courts below have recorded their findings on both these issues. As such, the Defendant was very much aware that in the capacity of landlord the suit was filed by the Plaintiff.
25. In addition to above, it is further pertinent to note that from the evidence placed on record by the parties, it is clear that Municipal Corporation in its notice to the Defendant has mentioned him as an occupant/tenant to the suit shop. The said notice was of the year 1988-89. Therefore, it is clear that the Defendant is in occupation of the suit shop since the year 1987. The Leave and License Agreement, which is relied upon by the Defendant is of the year 2001-02. This fact clarifies that the Defendant was in occupation of the shop as a tenant before Leave and License 15/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt Agreement. Hence, in my opinion, this Leave and License Agreement nullify its effect from this admitted fact. It is also established that during the course of evidence the Defendant used to pay regular rent to the Plaintiff. As the Defendant used to pay the regular rent, this fact also fortify the submission that though the Plaintiff has relied upon the Leave and License Agreement of the year 2001-02, but their relations were in existence as a landlord and tenant.
26. It will be necessary to take note that the basic ingredients for classifying the case as a licensee, the Leave and License Agreement must be a registered document. However, in the present case, the Lease Deed produced by the Defendant on record is not a registered document. Therefore, in my opinion, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the entire plaint is required to be considered and not only one document.
27. One more thing which needs to be recorded in the present matter is that the Defendant himself has stated to be the tenant. But, he want to take benefit of the pleading of the Plaintiff in the plaint. However, in such cases, the settled position of law is 16/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt required to be considered as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (supra).
28. Considering the fact that both the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding about the bona fide need, nuisance and hardship which are the factors required to be considered while deciding the plaint between the landlord and tenant, I am of the considered opinion that nomenclature of the suit cannot be a reason to disapprove the finding of the facts recorded by both the courts below.
29. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the present Petition. The same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
30. In the light of observation made by this Court on merits of the Petition, Civil Application Nos. 1221/2025 and 2294/2025 are hereby disposed of.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] Later on :
31. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks 17/17 Judg.wp.2062.2018.odt six weeks time to challenge the present Judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
32. The learned Counsel for Respondent strongly opposed the prayer made by the Petitioners.
33. In the present matter, during the pendency of Petition, statement of Respondent was recorded that she will not execute the decree and same was in operation till date. Hence, the Judgment of this Court would remain stayed for further four weeks.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] vijaya Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/03/2026 11:12:39