Dismissed¶25

Mr. Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan v. Somvashiya Sahastrarjun Kshtriya Samaj Trust Thr. Thr Trustee

Bombay HC29 Jul 2025CRA/177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Civil Revision Application No.177 of 2025, N.J. Jamadar, J., 29 July 2025, 2025:BHC-AS:32090. Obstructionist-son of deceased original tenant challenged dismissal of his appeal (RCA No.49 of 2024) from executing Court's order dated 13 December 2023 rejecting his Obstruction Application against eviction decree affirmed up to the Supreme Court; allegations of fraud and suppression; held: no material over 40 years of carrying on business in demised premises; sonship alone confers no tenancy; no error in courts below; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The executing Court and the Appellate Court consistently recorded that there is not an iota of material to show that over a period of 40 years the Applicant had been carrying on business in the demised premises. ¶21

Mr. Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan vs Somvashiya Sahastrarjun Kshtriya Samaj Trust Thr. Thr Trustee — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant/Petitioner, son of the original tenant Abdul Rehman, was carrying on business in the demised premises after the original tenant's death so as to sustain a claim of tenancy and obstruct execution of the eviction decree. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Even taken at par that the Applicant is the son of the original tenant born to his first wife, that does not amount to conferment of tenancy unless he demonstrates he was carrying on business in the demised premises or, after the original tenant's death, along with Kadirbhai; in the absence of such evidence, no claim for tenancy could be sustained.

¶24

Key takeaways

There is no substance in the submission canvassed on behalf of the Applicant founded on the executing Court's record that the decree holder had not categorically mentioned relinquishment of the obstructionist's tenancy rights.ratio¶21
The Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.), Civil Revision Application No.177 of 2025, decided 29 July 2025 (neutral citation 2025:BHC-AS:32090): The revision by Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan, obstructionist and son of the original tenant Abdul Rehman (who died in 1981), challenged the learned District Judge's judgment and order dated 13 December 2024 in RCA No.49 of 2024 dismissing his appeal against the executing Court's order dated 13 December 2023 rejecting his Obstruction Application in execution of an eviction decree affirmed up to the Supreme Court (demised premises occupied by Kadirbhai, step brother of the Petitioner, as tenant since 1984). Held: the courts below consistently found not an iota of material showing the Applicant carried on business in the demised premises over 40 years; mere sonship of the original tenant does not confer tenancy absent demonstration of carrying on business therein (or along with Kadirbhai after the original tenant's death); the submission premised on the executing Court's record regarding non-mention of relinquishment of tenancy rights had no substance; no error in the impugned orders. Revision Application dismissed.

¶1

903 cra 177 of 2025.doc

¶2

2025:BHC-AS:32090

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025

¶4

Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan ... versus Somvashiya Sahastrarajun Kshtriya Samaj Trust and Ors. …

¶5

Applicant

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Satyajeet Mirajkar, for Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Jaydeep Deo with Mr. Omkar Gawade, for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 29 JULY 2025

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 13 December 2024 passed by the learned District Judge in RCA No.49 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner / obstructionist against the order passed by the executing Court on 13 December 2023 came to be dismissed.

¶14

Mr. Abdul Rehman was the original tenant of the demised premises. Abdul Rehman passed away in 1981. It is the claim of the landlord that after the demise of Abdul Rehman, legal heirs of Abdul Rehman gave consent for the transfer of tenancy in favour of Kadirbhai, step brother of the Petitioner. Since 1984, Kadirbhai has been in occupation of the demised premises as tenant thereof. Eventually, a decree for eviction came to be passed, which

¶15

SSP 1/3

¶16

903 cra 177 of 2025.doc

¶17

has been affirmed upto the Supreme Court.

¶18

The Petitioner has taken out an Obstruction Application asserting that he was also carrying on the business at the demised premises as the son of late Abdul Rehman. The landlord instituted a suit for eviction without impleading all the legal heirs of late Abdul Rehman as party Defendants and obtained a decree by practicing fraud and suppression of material facts.

¶19

The executing Court as well as the Appellate Court have recorded a categorical finding that there is no material to show that the Petitioner has been carrying on the business in demised premises, after the death of Abdul Rehman.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Applicant laid emphasis on the fact that in the order passed by the executing Court, it has been recorded that the decree holder had not categorically mentioned the fact that the obstructionist has relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the Trust and, yet, the Obstruction Application came to be dismissed.

¶21

There is no substance in the submission sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Applicant. The executing Court and the Appellate Court have consistently recorded that there is not an iota of material to show that over a period of 40 years, the Applicant had been carrying on the business in the demised premises. The period is too long not afford evidence to show that the Applicant has carrying on the business in the demised premises. Even

¶22

SSP 2/3

¶23

903 cra 177 of 2025.doc

¶24

the fact that the Applicant is the son of Abdul Rehman, born to his first wife, is taken at par, that does not amount to conferment of tenancy unless the Applicant could demonstrate that he was carrying on the business in the demised premises, or for that matter, after the death of the original tenant along with Kadirbhai. In the absence of such evidence, no claim for tenancy could be sustained. The Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.

¶25

8. The Revision Application stands dismissed.

¶26

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶27

SSP 3/3

¶28

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 30/07/2025 16:12:39

Mr. Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan v. Somvashiya Sahastrarjun Kshtriya Samaj Trust Thr. Thr Trustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Abdulgani Abdul Rehman Khan v. Somvashiya Sahastrarjun Kshtriya Samaj Trust Thr. Thr Trustee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Datta Khandu Atakari vs Dhondibhau Ranu Mhaske Decd.Thr Heirs and Legal Representive and Ors.

Sagar Prakash Patil vs Laxmi @ Deepali Sagar Patil

Subhash Ramharsh Gupta vs State of Maharashtra Thoru. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Shikandar Bapu Kazi Since Decd. Thr Lrs vs Shriprasad Bapuso Chougule and Anr.

Saniya City Co-Op. Hsg Soc Ltd. vs Sagar Developers and Ors.

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha vs Alok Nath Sambuddha