Justice M.M. Sathaye, in a judgment pronounced on 9th June 2026, allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Sharan Builders (a registered partnership firm) and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court that had dismissed the eviction suit on technical grounds.

Background of the Case

The dispute dates back to 1975. Sharan Builders and its partner Mr. T.M. Chandiramani had granted leave and licence of Flat No. 14/C, Cozi Home Cooperative Housing Society, Pali Hill, Bandra (West) to late Narain B. Kanugo. An agreement was executed on 1st November 1975 for 11 months at a monthly licence fee of ₹600 (initially ₹950).

The licence expired on 1st October 1976. The licensors issued a termination notice on 12th January 1978 demanding vacant possession and arrears. When the occupant failed to vacate, Sharan Builders filed L.E. & C. Suit No. 247/338 of 1978 before the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

The defendant claimed he was a protected tenant along with his wife under the Bombay Rent Act and not a mere licensee. However, both the Trial Court (2002) and Appellate Court (2005) held that the defendant failed to prove tenancy.

Despite this, the suit was dismissed on a technicality — after the death of partner Mr. T.M. Chandiramani, his legal heirs were not brought on record, and the partnership firm alone was held to have no locus standi.

High Court’s Key Observations

Justice Sathaye strongly criticised the lower courts’ “hyper-technical” and “misconceived” approach. The court held:

• The defendant had admitted in his advocate’s reply and written statement that Sharan Builders (Plaintiff No.1) was the owner who had inducted him and to whom he paid rent by cheque. He was therefore estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the firm’s title and locus.
• In eviction suits, courts are not required to conduct a full title inquiry as in a title suit. The lower courts wrongly delved deep into society records and share certificates.
• The partnership firm, along with one of its partners, had filed the suit and the agreement was executed by the partner on behalf of the firm (evidenced by the rubber stamp on the original agreement).
• One of the sons of the deceased partner (Mr. Chandru T. Chandiramani) was already on record as a partner and had signed the plaint.
• The defendant miserably failed to prove he was a tenant. After the licence expired in 1976, he became a trespasser.

The court noted that the occupant and his legal heirs had enjoyed the flat for over 48 years without paying licence fees or compensation after termination, causing serious hardship to the owners.

Final Order

The Bombay High Court:

• Quashed both lower court judgments and decreed the suit in favour of Sharan Builders.
• Directed the legal heirs of late Narain Kanugo (including Respondent No.3, who is currently in possession) to hand over vacant and peaceful possession within 10 weeks.
• Directed them to file an undertaking in the High Court within 2 weeks.
• Allowed the petitioners to initiate a separate inquiry for mesne profits (compensation for use and occupation) from 12th January 1978 onwards.

This landmark order underscores the importance of written agreements, the principle of estoppel, and the need to prevent technical objections from defeating substantive justice in long-pending property matters.

Also Read: Rent-Control Protected Tenant Evicted After 41-Years Legal Battle: Shifted Kitchen for Extra Bedroom Without Permission

The post 48-Year Battle Ends: Mumbai HC Orders Eviction of Tenant from Bandra Flat appeared first on Square Feat India.