Disposed

Majjid Ibrahim Shaikh v. Dilip Anant Gite

Bombay HC30 Jan 2024CRA/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant's revision against concurrent eviction decrees based on rent arrears and landlord's bonafide requirement. The High Court found the bonafide requirement issue was framed only at the appellate stage and the plaintiff's ownership was doubtful per sale deeds, though tenancy was accepted. Both judgments were quashed and the suit restored for fresh trial with a framed issue on landlord status.

What did the court decide?

Both judgments quashed; suit restored for fresh trial with issue on landlord status; applicant to deposit arrears within four weeks and rent quarterly in advance.

Majjid Ibrahim Shaikh Vs Dilip Anant Gite — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/7

¶3

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶4

KANCHAN Digitally signed byKANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.02.0614:55:44 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2023

¶6

Majjid Ibrahim Shaikh

¶7

….. Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Dilip Anant Gite ….. Respondent

¶10

Mr.Dilip Bodake a/w. Mr.Sharad Bhosale, Ms.Shraddha Pawar for
the Applicant.

¶11

Mr.Niranjan Kandade i/b. Mr.Nikhil Wadikar for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶13

 DATE : 30 JANUARY, 2024

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original

¶16

defendant challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the

¶17

Trial Court and the District Court.

¶18

2. The respondent/original plaintiff/landlord filed a suit for

¶19

eviction against the applicant with regard to the suit premises

¶20

which is a shop admeasuring 7 feet x 20 feet situated at Village

¶21

Songirwadi, Taluka Wai, District Satara. In the said suit, the

¶22

defendant filed its written statement and denied the contents as

¶23

KVM

¶24

2/7

¶25

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶26

averred in the plaint. The issues were framed in the said suit.

¶27

The said issues are as under :-

¶28

1. Does the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in
arrears of rent amount of Rs.5,600/- ?

¶29

2. Does the plaintiff proves that he validly
terminated the tenancy of the defendant by issuing
notice dated 23/04/2010 ?

¶30

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property ?

¶31

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of rent
amount of Rs.1800/- ?

¶32

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits ?

¶33

6. What order and decree ?

¶34

3. It appears from the record that the plaintiff had examined

¶35

two witnesses in order to prove his case of eviction. It appears

¶36

from the record that the defendant has not cross examined the
plaintiff’s witnesses and neither has defendant led its evidence.
The Trial Court thereafter by its judgment and order dated 21
November, 2014 decreed the suit by directing the defendant to
handover vacant possession.

¶37

KVM

¶38

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶39

3/7

¶40

4.Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court, the tenant filed an appeal before the District Court,
being Regular Civil Appeal No. 277 of 2016. In the said appeal,
the District Court framed its points for determination. The said
points for determination are as under :-

¶41

1. Whether the defendant is a wilful defaulter ?

¶42

2. Whether the suit shop is not used for the purpose for which it was rented for a period of more that 6 months prior to the date of the filing of this suit ?

¶43

3. Whether the suit shop is reasonable and bonafide and required by the plaintiff for his own use ?

¶44

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit shop?

¶45

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the arrears of rent as prayed ?

¶46

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits ?

¶47

7. Whether the suit is tenable ?

¶48

8. Whether the matter needs to be remanded back for retrial ?

¶49

9. Whether the judgment and order of the Ld. Trial Judge needs interference ?

¶50

10. What order and decree ?

¶51

KVM

¶52

4/7

¶53

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶54

5.It appears that for the first time, the Appellate Court
amongst other points, also framed a point “reasonable and
bonafide requirement of the plaintiff”.

¶55

6.The Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 28
September, 2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and
answered the points for determination in favour of the plaintiff,
of ‘willful defaulter’ and also on ‘reasonable and bonafide
requirement of the plaintiff’.

¶56

7.It was the contention of the defendant that he had paid the
arrears of rent but the same was not accepted by the plaintiff. It
was his contention that by money order dated 14 July, 2010, the
rent was sent to the plaintiff, but he did not accept the same. It
was also contention of the defendant that an application was
preferred by the defendant, Ex.14, Ex.15 and Ex.16 for
production of the documents including the documents being Sale
Deeds dated 3 February, 1987 and 10 July, 2013.

¶57

KVM

¶58

5/7

¶59

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶60

8. By an order dated 15 January, 2022, production of the

¶61

documents was allowed.

¶62

9.The Appellate Court though considered this fact about the
sale deed, however as regards the ownership of the suit premises
is concerned, the Appellate Court gave a finding that the tenant
had accepted the plaintiff as its landlord. Therefore, it is held
that the suit was tenable as there was no point for determination,
to decide “whether the plaintiff is the landlord of the suit
premises”.

¶63

10.Taking into consideration the above facts, it appears that
the Trial Court had never framed an issue about “bonafide and
reasonable requirement”. The said issue/point for determination
for the first time was framed by the Appellate Court. The
defendant has not led any evidence and has not even cross
examined the witnesses of the plaintiff. However, the Appellate

¶64

Court has come to the finding that as per the sale deed, it can be
seen that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit shop.

¶65

KVM

¶66

6/7

¶67

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶68

Therefore, according to me it will be necessary for the Court to
frame an issue in this regard and evidence of the parties would
be necessary.

¶69

11.Hence, I am hereby quashing and setting aside both the the
judgments i.e. judgment dated 21 November, 2014 passed by the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai in Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of
2010 and the judgment and decree dated 28 September, 2022
passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge (1), Satara in Regular Civil
Appeal No. 277 of 2016. Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 2010 is
restored back to file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai.

¶70

12.The Civil Judge, Junior Division should hear the Regular
Civil Suit No. 141 of 2010 afresh and frame the issue again.
Thereafter allow the parties to lead the evidence and decide the
matter on its own merits.

¶71

13.The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai is also directed to
frame issue on the point, Whether the plaintiff is the landlord of

¶72

KVM

¶73

7/7

¶74

902 - CRA 30 OF 2023.doc

¶75

the suit premises ? apart from the other issues which he will be
framing.

¶76

14.The applicant/defendant is directed to deposit the entire
arrears of agreed rent within a period of four weeks from today.

¶77

15.The applicant should also deposit the rent of the suit
premises from January 2024 for three months in advance and
should keep paying the same quarterly in advance till the hearing
and final disposal of the suit or as per the directions of the Court
below without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties.

¶78

16.In view of the above, Civil Revision Application is
accordingly disposed of.

¶79

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Majjid Ibrahim Shaikh v. Dilip Anant Gite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majjid Ibrahim Shaikh v. Dilip Anant Gite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ifat Jiauddin Shaikh Vs Mrs. Hemalata Wd/O Damji Kunverji Bharani

Central Silk Borad Vs Meghdoot Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Central Silk Board Vs Meghdoot Co. Op. Hou. Soc. Ltd.

Dilip Mohan Jham Vs Kamlesh Singh Harnamsingh Chowhan

Sharad Digambar Badave Vs Smt. Sharda Gajanan Dingare and Anr.

Executive Engineer Minor Lift Irrigation Management Division Pune vs Shantabai Thule