Disposed¶31

Prem S/O. Ashok Tahilramani v. Smt. Mayadevi Wd/O. Late Lalchand Moryani

Bombay HC4 Apr 2025WP/7372/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 7372 of 2024; Prem Tahilramani v. Mayadevi Moryani; Smt. M.S. Jawalkar J.; decided 23/04/2025; Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 S.16, S.16(1)(g) & (c); tenant versus licensee status; point referred to First Appellate Court; partial quashing of District Judge-15 Nagpur order dated 29/04/2024 in R.C.A. No. 100136/2007; related pending Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2018; originating suit Reg. Civil Suit No. 475 of 2002, Small Causes Court, Nagpur (possession, bonafide need).

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 29/04/2024 of the learned District Judge-15, Nagpur in R.C.A. No. 100136/2007 quashed and set aside to the extent of the finding on point no. 2; only the finding on point no. 1 to be considered; petition disposed of. ¶31

Prem S/O. Ashok Tahilramani vs Smt. Mayadevi Wd/O. Late Lalchand Moryani — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (defendant below) is a tenant or a licensee — a question stated to go to the root of the matter and to decide whether the suit under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is maintainable. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

Under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the 'licensee' as defined does not include the tenant and the definition of 'tenant' does not include the licensee; thus both terms are distinct and different.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Whether the petitioner is a tenant or a licensee goes to the root of the matter and would decide whether the suit under Section 16 of the Act of 1999 is maintainable.

¶20

Key takeaways

The second point (tenability of the suit under Section 16(1)(g) & (c)) was not required to be answered in view of the point referred by this Court; it fell to be answered only if the first point were answered in the negative.ratio¶26
Since point no. 1 was answered in the affirmative, the learned District Judge going on to decide the second point also was against the order passed by this Court.ratio¶29
The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court (District Judge-15, Nagpur) on point no. 1 will be considered; the finding on point no. 2 will not be considered by this Court for any decision on merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prem S/o. Ashok Tahilramani v. Smt. Mayadevi Wd/o. Late Lalchand Moryani, Writ Petition No. 7372 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.) (decided 23/04/2025): challenges the order dated 29/04/2024 of the learned District Judge-15, Nagpur in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 100136/2007 recording findings on the points referred by this Court under its order dated 31/01/2024 in the still-pending Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2018. Held: under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, 'licensee' and 'tenant' are defined distinctly, neither including the other, and whether the defendant is tenant or licensee goes to the root of the matter and decides maintainability of the suit under Section 16. The referred point required the First Appellate Court to answer only point no. 1 (whether the trial Court was right in holding the defendant a tenant) and, only if answered negatively, point no. 2 (tenability of the suit under Section 16(1)(g) & (c)). Since point no. 1 stood answered in the affirmative, the District Judge's additional finding on point no. 2 was contrary to this Court's order and is quashed and set aside; only the finding on point no. 1 will be considered on merits. Petition disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:4474

¶2

7-WP 7372-2024 (J).odt 1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7372 OF 2024

¶5

Prem S/o. Ashok Tahilramani,

¶6

Aged about Major, Occ: Business, R/o. 146, Near Ahuja Niwas, Jaripatka, Nagpur

¶7

…. PETITIONER

¶8

….VERSUS….

¶9

Smt. Mayadevi Wd/o. Late Lalchand Moryani,

¶10

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Landlady, Moryani Bhawan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Panchpaoli, Nagpur .... RESPONDENT

¶11

Shri Anjan De, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.M.Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE : 23/04/2025

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29/04/2024 passed by the learned District Judge-15, Nagpur in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 100136/2007.

¶16

7-WP 7372-2024 (J).odt 2/5

¶17

It appears that the Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2018 was filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 09/02/2018 passed by the learned District Judge-8, Nagpur in R.C.A. No. 136 of 2007, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner and upholding the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2007 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Reg. Civil Suit No. 475 of 2002, decreeing the suit for possession against the petitioner. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit block is of 300 sq.ft. and it was licensed to the defendant. The memorandum of leave and license agreement was executed and though the period for which the suit block was licensed was over, the petitioner failed to vacate it and since the suit block is required for bonafide need, the suit was filed under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (in short, “the Act of 1999”).

¶18

From the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the ‘licensee’ as defined does not include the tenant and definition of ‘tenant’ does not include the

¶19

7-WP 7372-2024 (J).odt 3/5

¶20

licensee. Thus, both the terms are distinct and different. In view thereof, this Court in Writ Petition No. 2062/2018, by order dated 31/01/2024, observed that the landlady is treating the petitioner as licensee, whereas the petitioner is disputing his status as licensee and claiming to be a tenant. There was no issue in this regard by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court recorded the finding without framing this issue. It is further observed by this Court that whether the petitioner is a tenant or a licensee goes to the root of the matter and which would decide, whether the suit under Section 16 of the Act of 1999 is maintainable ? In view of this observation, this Court framed the issue and referred to the learned First Appellate Court to answer the following point on the basis of existing pleadings and evidence. The issue framed is as under:-

¶21

“(a) In light of the pleadings of the plaintiff that the defendant is a licensee, whether the learned trial Court is right in holding that the defendant is a tenant ? and if the answer is in negative, whether the suit under Section 16(1) (g) & (c) of the Act of 1999, is tenable against the defendant ?”

¶22

7-WP 7372-2024 (J).odt 4/5

¶23

The learned First Appellate Court was directed to frame the above referred point for consideration and by recording its finding and answer to it, refer the matter back to this Court. The learned Appellate Court after referring the point, has framed two points as under:-

¶24

“1. Whether the learned trial Court is right in holding that the defendant is a tenant ?

¶25

2. Whether the suit under Section 16(1)(g) and (c) of the Act is tenable against the defendant ?”

¶26

In fact, the second point was not required to be answered in view of the point referred by this Court. It is specifically mentioned in the point referred to the learned First Appellate Court that, if the answer to the first point that

¶27

whether the learned Trial Court is right in holding that the defendant is a tenant ? and if the answer is in the negative, then, there was necessity to answer second issue that is whether the suit under Section 16(1)(g) & (c) of the Act of 1999 is tenable against the defendant ? was to be answered. However, it appears that, in spite of the fact that, the point no. 1 is answered in affirmative. The learned District Judge went

¶28

7-WP 7372-2024 (J).odt 5/5

¶29

to decide the second point also which is against the order passed by this Court. However, the Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2018 is pending in which this order is passed is of dated 31/01/2024. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court i.e. learned District Judge-15, Nagpur against point no. 1 will be considered and finding against point no. 2 would not be considered by this Court for any of the decision on merit.

¶30

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 29/04/2024 passed by the learned District Judge-15, Nagpur in R.C.A. No. 100136/2007 after referring the point to the extent of finding with regard to point no. 2, is hereby quashed and set aside. This Court would consider only finding with regard to point no. 1.

¶31

As such, the petition stands disposed of .

¶32

(Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)

¶33

B.T.Khapekar

¶34

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/04/2025 17:04:43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 29/04/2024 of the learned District Judge-15, Nagpur in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 100136/2007 recording findings on the points referred by this Court; challenged in this petition and later quashed to the extent of the finding on point no. 2.¶15
District Judge-15, Nagpur · 29/04/2024
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No. 2062 of 2018 was filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 09/02/2018 of the learned District Judge-8, Nagpur in R.C.A. No. 136 of 2007; that writ petition remains pending.¶17
Prior proceeding
R.C.A. No. 136 of 2007 (District Judge-8, Nagpur): the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 09/02/2018, upholding the Small Causes Court decree of 31/01/2007.¶17
Prior proceeding
Reg. Civil Suit No. 475 of 2002 (Small Causes Court, Nagpur): suit for possession of a 300 sq.ft. block licensed to the defendant, filed under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for bonafide need; judgment and decree dated 31/01/2007 decreed possession against the petitioner.¶17
Prior proceeding
By order dated 31/01/2024 in Writ Petition No. 2062/2018, this Court observed that the landlady treats the petitioner as licensee while he disputes that status and claims to be a tenant; no such issue had been framed by the Trial Court or Appellate Court; the status question goes to the root and decides maintainability of the suit under Section 16; this Court framed the issue and referred the point to the learned First Appellate Court to answer on existing pleadings and evidence.¶20
Prior proceeding
The learned First Appellate Court (District Judge-15, Nagpur) was directed to frame the referred point, record its finding and answer, and refer the matter back to this Court; it framed two points and answered point no. 1 in the affirmative.¶23
Prior proceeding
Despite point no. 1 being answered in the affirmative, the learned District Judge-15 proceeded to decide point no. 2 also, contrary to this Court's order of referral, in its order dated 29/04/2024.¶27

Prem S/O. Ashok Tahilramani v. Smt. Mayadevi Wd/O. Late Lalchand Moryani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem S/O. Ashok Tahilramani v. Smt. Mayadevi Wd/O. Late Lalchand Moryani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sau. Indirabai Ashok Wankhade vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

M/S Mohota Industries Ltd, Hinganghat, Thr. Its Authorised Representative Shri. Pradeep Harne vs Smt. Vibha W/O Mayank Agarwal

Sanjay S/O. Prabhakar Tute and Others vs Sanjay S/O. Golaji Jadhav and Another

Santosh S/O. Ganeshprasad Tiwari Vs Sarita W/O. Santosh Tiwari

M/S Mohota Industries Ltd, Hinganghat, Thr. Its Authorised Representative Shri. Pradeep Harne vs Smt. Vibha W/O Mayank Agarwal

Vishnu Shankarrao Gaikwad and Others vs Anand S/O. Sadashiv Meghe and Ors.