In a powerful judgment delivered on 26 November 2025, Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court overturned a bizarre lower-court decision and restored possession of a Mumbai flat to Maharukh Mediomah Patel, whose elderly father was illegally dispossessed by his neighbour-turned-caretaker while he lay bedridden in hospital. Calling it a “classic case” of caretaker greed, the court ordered the caretaker, Ruksana Barodawala, to vacate the grabbed portion and pay ₹50,000 in costs.
Background: Two Families Sharing One Large First-Floor Flat
The property is Flat No. 1 on the first floor of Abbasi Building (earlier Mistry Building), Plot No. 148, Pathe Bapurao Marg, Grant Road (E), Mumbai – a large five-room flat with two separate toilets and a common passage.
- For decades, the flat was peacefully divided:
- Three rooms + one toilet (approximately 1,000 sq. ft.) were occupied by Maharukh’s family (originally her parents Sorab and Minnie Engineer, and earlier by her great-uncle Motabhai and great-aunt Dhanmai Dubash).
- The remaining two rooms + one toilet were occupied by Shirinbai Daruwala (the original tenant) and later by her caretakers.
How the Caretaker Took Control
- In 1975, Shirinbai Daruwala, an elderly unmarried woman, allowed Akhtar Ali Barodawala to stay as her caretaker.
- Akhtar married Ruksana in 1985. Over the years, Ruksana claimed she became Shirinbai’s “daughter-like” figure.
- In 1985–1993, Ruksana produced a Caretaking Agreement, an affidavit, and letters allegedly transferring tenancy rights of the entire flat to her name while Shirinbai was still alive (Shirinbai died only in 2002).
- Ruksana began paying rent for the entire flat from 1993 and insisted that Maharukh’s parents were merely “encroachers” in one room.
The Cruel Dispossession in 2013
- Maharukh’s mother died in 2010. Maharukh had moved to Jamshedpur after marriage, but her aged father Sorab continued living alone in their three-room portion.
- In August 2013, 80+ year-old Sorab fell outside the building and was admitted to Masina Hospital in a serious condition.
- While Sorab was hospitalised and Maharukh was attending to him, Ruksana removed the common wooden passage door, installed a new iron door with her own locks, and sealed off Maharukh’s portion – all without any permission.
- Sorab was later taken to Jamshedpur for better care and passed away there on 9 December 2013.
- When Maharukh returned to Mumbai on 4 February 2014, she found Ruksana in full control of all five rooms. Ruksana refused entry and claimed the entire flat belonged to her.
Lower Court’s Shocking Decision (2019)
Maharukh filed a summary suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for recovery of possession within 6 months of dispossession).
- The City Civil Court found that Ruksana had indeed illegally dispossessed the family.
- Yet, in a hyper-technical twist, the trial judge dismissed the suit saying the exact boundaries of the “three rooms + toilet” were not described clearly enough to pass an “executable decree” – even though both parties knew exactly which portion was in dispute.
- Result: The wrongdoer kept the flat.
Bombay High Court Sets It Right
In cross revision applications (CRA 64/2021 & 304/2021), Justice Marne delivered a scathing 34-page judgment:
- Hospitalisation or moving a sick person for care does not mean relinquishing possession. Ruksana’s story that the father “voluntarily vacated” while on a hospital bed was rejected as “bizarre and dishonest”.
- Changing locks without consent while the occupant is hospitalised is classic illegal dispossession.
- The description in the plaint plus the colour-coded sketch were more than sufficient for identification. Courts exist to deliver justice, not defeat it on technicalities.
- Section 6 suits are summary in nature – title is irrelevant. Even if Ruksana claims tenancy of the whole flat, she cannot dispossess a person in settled possession.
- The trial court’s approach defeated the very purpose of Section 6.
Final Orders (26 November 2025)
- Civil Revision Application of Maharukh Patel allowed; suit decreed.
- Ruksana Barodawala ordered to hand over peaceful possession of the three rooms + toilet portion to Maharukh immediately.
- Permanent injunction against Ruksana and the builder from interfering with Maharukh’s possession.
- Ruksana to pay ₹50,000 costs to Maharukh for false defences and unlawful conduct.
- Request for stay rejected – justice delayed for 11 years cannot be delayed further.
This judgment serves as a strong warning: caretakers cannot exploit the vulnerability of senior citizens and grab neighbouring portions by changing locks the moment someone falls sick.
Also Read: Renewal of Lease = New Lease, Attracts Stamp Duty Bombay High Court
