Dismissed¶29

Hirabai Hiraman Wadkar and Ors. v. Balkrishna Nathoba Shitole (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Minakshi Balkrishna Shitole Deceased

Bombay HC15 Apr 2026IA/2892/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific Relief Act s.6 — heirs/LRs of deceased tenant-plaintiff may maintain suit for illegal dispossession against landlords; surrender of tenancy and handing over possession not proved; acquisition of alternate accommodation and non-payment of rent are mere eviction grounds, not proof of surrender; only plaintiff's prior possession relevant; no interference under s.115 CPC; landlords' civil revision dismissed; Bombay HC, Gauri Godse J., 15.04.2026; CRA 541/2018 with IA 2892/2026; interim protection extended four weeks from upload.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision application dismissed; pending civil applications disposed of as infructuous; interim protection extended to operate for four weeks from date of uploading the order. ¶29

Hirabai Hiraman Wadkar and Ors. vs Balkrishna Nathoba… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil revision application dismissed; pending civil applications disposed of as infructuous; interim protection extended to operate for four weeks from date of uploading the order.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff (deceased tenant) can continue the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for illegal dispossession after his death. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Heirs and legal representatives claiming through the original tenant are entitled to sue for the illegal dispossession of the original plaintiff; the right to sue continues to them once brought on record, their relationship with the deceased not being in dispute.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

For deciding the prayer for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the only criterion to be examined is the plaintiff's prior possession.

¶23

Key takeaways

Non-payment of rent or acquisition of alternative accommodation can at the most be a ground for the landlord to seek the tenant's eviction and would not ipso facto mean the tenant handed over possession; the defence of surrendering of tenancy and handing over possession was not proved by any evidence.ratio¶27
There is no jurisdictional or other manifest error in the trial court's judgment and order warranting interference in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.ratio¶28
The interim protection granted in the civil revision application shall continue to operate for four weeks from the date of uploading the order on the website.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), by order dated 15 April 2026, dismissed Civil Revision Application No. 541 of 2018 (with Interim Application No. 2892 of 2026) filed by landlords (original defendants) against the trial court's decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in a possession suit continued by the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased tenant-plaintiff. Held: (i) in a Section 6 possession claim the only criterion is the plaintiff's prior possession; (ii) the tenant's acquisition of alternate accommodation and non-payment of rent are at most grounds for seeking eviction and do not ipso facto prove surrender or handing over of possession — the landlords' surrender plea was unsupported by any evidence; (iii) heirs and legal representatives claiming through the original tenant are entitled to sue for his illegal dispossession, and the right to sue continues to them once brought on record; (iv) no jurisdictional or manifest error under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Pending civil applications disposed of as infructuous; interim protection continued for four weeks from upload of the order.

¶1

59-cra-541-2018-ia-2892-2026.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2018

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2892 OF 2026

¶7

Hirabai Hiraman Wadkar and Ors … Applicants

¶8

vs.

¶9

Balkrishna Nathoba Shitole(since deceased) … Respondent

¶10

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Niranjan A. Mogre a/w. Mr. Umang Mehta a/w. Mr. Swaraj M. Savant a/w. Mr. Varun H. Thanawala a/w. Mr. Soham S. Lande for the Applicants.

¶11

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2026.04.22 13:17:53 +0530

¶12

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶13

DATED : 15^th APRIL 2026

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This civil revision application is filed by the original defendants to challenge the trial court's judgment and decree allowing the suit filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. During the pendency of the suit, respondent no.1, i.e. the original plaintiff, expired, and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. Admittedly, the original plaintiff was the tenant of the suit property. The revision applicants are the landlords.

¶16

Page no. 1 of 5

¶17

59-cra-541-2018-ia-2892-2026.doc

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that, admittedly, the plaintiff had acquired an alternate accommodation and had shifted to that flat, which is apparent from the admissions given in the evidence. He submits that after acquiring alternate accommodation, the original plaintiff has surrendered the suit property. Thereafter, he also stopped paying rent. The applicants, accordingly, inducted another tenant who is in possession of the suit property and regularly pays rent. He submits that all these facts support the applicants’ contention that the plaintiff had surrendered the suit property and shifted to his own premises. He therefore submits that when the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, and he failed to establish that he continued in possession after he acquired alternate accommodation, there would not be any question of illegal possession as contended by the plaintiff.

¶19

Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the remedy under Section 6 is a personal remedy for the person who has been allegedly dispossessed. Hence, after the death of the original plaintiff, his heirs and legal representatives would have no right to sue these revision applicants for a decree of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. He submits that the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff never applied at any time

¶20

Page no. 2 of 5

¶21

59-cra-541-2018-ia-2892-2026.doc

¶22

for any kind of declaration that they have any right in respect of the suit property. Hence, the impugned order would require interference of this court.

¶23

I have perused the papers of the civil revision application. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was the tenant of the revision applicants. It appears that there is also no dispute that the original plaintiff had acquired some accommodation. The revision applicants have claimed that the original plaintiff had surrendered the tenancy and handed over the possession. However, this pleading is not supported by any evidence. The issue of non-payment of rent or the tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation can at the most be a ground for the landlord to seek the tenant's eviction. However, the same would not ipso facto mean that the tenant would hand over possession to the landlord. The issue regarding the other person who is inducted into the premises would also be irrelevant to deciding the original plaintiff's grievance of illegal dispossession. Therefore, for deciding the prayer for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the only criterion to be examined is the plaintiff's prior possession.

¶24

In the present case, the plaintiff’s tenancy is not in dispute. The defence appears to be a surrender of the tenancy and a

¶25

Page no. 3 of 5

¶26

59-cra-541-2018-ia-2892-2026.doc

¶27

handing over of possession, which is not supported by any evidence. As far as the rights of heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff to continue the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act is concerned, the heirs and legal representatives claiming through the original tenant would be entitled to sue for illegal dispossession of the original plaintiff. The heirs and legal representatives are brought on record, and their relationship with the original plaintiff is not in dispute. Hence, in the present case, the right to sue would continue to the heirs and legal representatives, who continued with the pleadings alleging that they were illegally dispossessed by the landlord. The trial court has therefore rightly decreed the suit as the possession of the original plaintiff as tenant was not in dispute, and the defence of surrendering of tenancy and handing over possession was not proved by any evidence.

¶28

I therefore do not find any jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and order, warranting any interference in the exercise of power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to interfere with it.

¶29

The civil revision application is therefore dismissed.

¶30

In view of the dismissal of the civil revision application, the

¶31

Page no. 4 of 5

¶32

59-cra-541-2018-ia-2892-2026.doc

¶33

pending civil applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶34

At this stage, learned senior counsel for the applicants seeks an extension of the interim protection granted by this court, which has been operating to date. The interim protection granted in the civil revision application shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading this order on the website.

¶35

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶36

Page no. 5 of 5

Hirabai Hiraman Wadkar and Ors. v. Balkrishna Nathoba Shitole (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Minakshi Balkrishna Shitole Deceased

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirabai Hiraman Wadkar and Ors. v. Balkrishna Nathoba Shitole (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs Minakshi Balkrishna Shitole Deceased

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

Similar cases

Haribhau K Kedar Since Deceased Throu. His Legal Heirs vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec. Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Sujita Narayan Nakhwa and Ors. vs Unique Constructions Thr Its Proprietor Mr Ravindra Baburao Patil

Focus Imaging and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs United Petro Finance Limited

Mr Mahesh Bhosale vs Arun Shankar Bhosale

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe vs Maruti Ranu Londhe

Mr. Mahesh Bhosale vs Shri Arun Shankar Bhosale