Dismissed¶21

Kishor Bhalchandra Mirajkar v. Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra Proprietor of M/S Omkar Developers

Bombay HC8 Dec 2025CRA/569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Revision Application No. 569 of 2025, decided 08 December 2025 by Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Keywords: Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; locus standi of Plaintiff; landlord definition Section 7(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999; partnership firm dissolution deed; property card Omkar Developers; Defendant-Tenant paying rent; impugned Trial Court order dated 04 September 2025 below Exhibit '26' in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2021 (Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Thane); CRA dismissed, no order as to costs. Advocates: Vishal Patil (Applicant), Rajni Patil (Respondent).

What did the court decide?

The definition of 'landlord' under Section 7, sub-section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is very wide. ¶17

Kishor Bhalchandra Mirajkar vs Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra Proprietor of M/S Omkar Developers — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

K.R. Gadekar 23-CRA-569-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 569 OF 2025

¶4

Kishor Bhalchandra Mirajkar Versus Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra Proprietor of	…Applicant
M/s. Omkar Developers	…Respondent
__________________________________________ Mr. Vishal Patil, for Applicant	_____________________

¶5

Ms. Rajni Patil (through v.c.) for Respondent

¶6

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 08 DECEMBER 2025

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

Heard, Mr. Vishal Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, and Ms. Rajni Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶9

By the present Civil Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 4^th September, 2025 passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane below Exhibit ‘26’ in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2021. The said application has been filed by the Defendant-Tenant under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (“ CPC ”)for rejection of the Plaint on the ground that Plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit.

¶10

The perusal of the record shows that the suit has been instituted

¶11

¶12

K.R. Gadekar 23-CRA-569-2025.doc

¶13

under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“ MRC Act ”). In the Plaint the Respondent – Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land and structure previously known as Jugnubai Chawl, now known as Omkar House, situated at CIS no. 55, Tikka No. 8, Opp. Municipality School No.7, Uthalsar, Thane (W) and the Applicant – Defendant is the tenant of the Plaintiff.

¶14

It is the submission of Mr. Patil that Plaintiff is not exclusive owner of the property and he has filed the suit in his individual capacity

¶15

when the suit property belongs to the partnership firm and plaintiff is only one of the partners of that partnership firm.

¶16

However, learned Trial Court has recorded that although the property is shown as per the property card in the name of Omkar Developer - through partner - Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra, however, the plaintiff has produced on record a dissolution deed of the partnership firm and therefore the plaintiff i.e. Jagdish Omprakash Mishra is proprietor.

¶17

In any case, the definition of “landlord” as defined under Section 7 of sub-section 3 of the MRC Act is very wide and even the landlord means any person who for the time being receiving or entitled to receive rent in respect of any premises, whether on his own account or on behalf or for the benefit of any other person or the trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person. It is an admitted position that the

¶18

¶19

K.R. Gadekar 23-CRA-569-2025.doc

¶20

Applicant is paying rent to the Respondent. Thus, no case is made out for the rejection of Plaint by exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶21

Accordingly, there is no substance in the Civil Revision Application. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

¶22

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶23

Kishor Bhalchandra Mirajkar v. Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra Proprietor of M/S Omkar Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Bhalchandra Mirajkar v. Jagdish Omkarnath Mishra Proprietor of M/S Omkar Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Agni Kumar Singh Security Agency vs M/S.Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.

Nirmalkumar Shyam Pasari and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Pankaj Patel and Ors. vs Isha Rohan Patel and Ors.

M/S. Ksa Enterprises and Anr. vs Mohammed Hafiz Mohammed Salim Shaikh

Dilip Jethalal Modi vs Shri Bansidhar B. Gupta (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Anr.

Ayub Khalid Khatri and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra