Dismissed¶11

Basant Chandiprasad Misra v. Jamshed Kali Mody and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2025WP/16860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition; rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; R.A.E. Suit No. 771/1214 of 2013; Small Causes Court Mumbai; Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2025; Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court; landlord-tenant relationship; unlawful sub-letting; unlawful occupants; eviction decree against tenant and unlawful occupants; plaint rejection set aside in appeal; no interference warranted; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶11

Basant Chandiprasad Misra vs Jamshed Kali Mody and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint in R.A.E. Suit No. 771/1214 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, notwithstanding the plaint's allegation that Defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs' tenant, unlawfully sub-let the premises to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5.

¶7

Court's answer

On its own averments, the Plaint proceeds on the footing that the Plaintiffs are the landlords and Defendant No.1 is the tenant; Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are described as unlawful occupants because Defendant No.1 allegedly unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to them.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court committed a grave mistake in rejecting the plaint, overlooking that the suit is between the landlord and tenant.

¶9

Key takeaways

No interference with the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court is warranted.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17th September 2025 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2025, whereby the appellate court set aside the Trial Court's order dated 31st August 2024 rejecting the plaint in R.A.E. Suit No. 771/1214 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Held: the plaint specifically averred that Defendant No.1 was the Plaintiffs' tenant and had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5, who were accordingly described as unlawful occupants; the suit was thus between the Plaintiffs as landlords and Defendant No.1 as tenant, and the Trial Court committed a grave mistake in rejecting the plaint. No interference with the appellate order was warranted; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

941-WP-16860-2025.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 16860 OF 2025

¶4

Basant Chandriprasad Misra and Ors. …Petitioners Versus Jamshed Kali Mody and Ors. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. P. Rajan i/b. Halai and Co, for the Petitioners Mr. Gaurav Srivastava a/w. Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Mr. Umair Merchant and Mr. Kanak Purohit i/b. Miskita and Co., for the Respondents

¶6

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 17^th DECEMBER 2025

¶7

PC:-

¶8

Heard, Mr. Rajan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

¶9

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 17^th September 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2025.

¶10

By the impugned order dated 17^th September 2025 the learned Appellate Court has allowed the said Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside order dated 31^st August 2024 passed by the learned

¶11

Page 1

¶12

Gadekar

¶13

941-WP-16860-2025.DOC

¶14

Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai below Exhibit 67 in R.A.E. Suit No. 771/1214 of 2013.

¶15

By the order dated 31^st August, 2024, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai allowed application bearing Exhibit 67 in R.A.E. Suit No. 771/1214 of 2013 filed by the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 seeking rejection of the plaint. Consequently, the plaint has been rejected by exercising power under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

¶16

The learned Appellate Court has set aside the said order dated 31^st August 2024.

¶17

Perusal of the record shows that the said RAE Suit No.771/1214 of 2013 has been filed by the Plaintiffs i.e. present Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by taking contention that the Defendant No.1 is a Tenant and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 i.e. present Petitioners are illegal occupants.

¶18

The learned Trial Court has rejected the plaint on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 i.e. Plaintiffs and present Petitioners i.e. Defendant nos. 2 to 5.

¶19

However, perusal of the Plaint clearly shows that the Plaintiffs have come with a specific case that Defendant No.1 is their

¶20

Page 2

¶21

Gadekar

¶22

941-WP-16860-2025.DOC

¶23

tenant and the Defendant No.1 has illegaly sub-letted the suit premises in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and in that context it is the case of the Plaintiffs that he is seeking decree of eviction against Defendant No.1 as tenant and against Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as the unlawful occupants.

¶24

Thus, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave mistake overlooking that the suit is between the landlord and tenant and as the Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sub-letted to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 they are described as unlawful occupants. Even if contentions of the Plaint are seen as it is then it is very clear that the Plaint proceeds on the footing that the Plaintiffs are the landlords and Defendant No. 1 is the Tenant. Thus in any case the Plaint is between the Plaintiffs i.e. Landlords and the Defendant No.1 as tenant.

¶25

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is warranted.

¶26

Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

¶27

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶28

Page 3

¶29

Gadekar

Basant Chandiprasad Misra v. Jamshed Kali Mody and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Chandiprasad Misra v. Jamshed Kali Mody and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janardhan Moru Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Bhagwandas Choudhary and Anr. vs Dinesh Purshottam Kapadia and Ors.

Towels India Exports Limited and Anr. vs Pladio Plastic Dies Company Pvt. Ltd.

Ayub Khalid Khatri and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Jairam S Mulchandani Throu Poa Priti Jairam Mulchandani vs Stanley Dsouza

Ramnath Bhikaji Ambetkar vs M/S Gammon India Limited and Anr.