Arifa Jahangir Asaraf Shaikh and Ors. vs Kanchan Nanadrajog Jaidevsingh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arifa Jahangir Asaraf Shaikh and Ors. vs Kanchan Nanadrajog Jaidevsingh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition partly allowed and disposed of: Trial Court's order dated 11 November 2019 modified so that the Defendant is to pay Rs.8,71,000/- (principal arrears of rent up to January 2019, excluding the 18% GST component) in place of Rs.10,27,780/-; Direction No.2 (deposit of Rs.6,500/- per month from February 2019 during pendency of the Suit) left unaffected; Appellate Bench's order likewise modified; Defendants given six weeks to pay/deposit the modified amount, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the Plaintiff's application for striking off the Defendants' defence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the figure of Rs.10,27,780/- determined by the Trial Court as outstanding arrears of rent was correct, given that the Plaintiff's chart added 18% GST on the rent figure of Rs.6,500/- from the year 2007 onwards although the Trial Court itself directed deposit of only the principal rent from February 2019.

Court's answer

Since the Trial Court itself directed deposit of only the principal rent of Rs.6,500/- per month from February 2019, the Defendants cannot be made liable to pay or deposit the GST component added by the Plaintiff on the rent from 1 December 2007 to January 2019; the Trial Court's order contains an error to that extent requiring correction.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the chart presented by the Plaintiff, the principal amount of arrears of rent up to January 2019 is Rs.8,71,000/-.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's order dated 11 November 2019 is modified by directing that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs Rs.8,71,000/- towards arrears of rent up to January 2019, and the order of the Appellate Bench also stands modified to the above extent.ratio¶21
Direction No.2 in the operative part of the Trial Court's order dated 11 November 2019 remains unaffected by the modification.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.) partly allowed Writ Petition No.17183 of 2025 challenging the order dated 26 March 2021 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court rejecting the Petitioners' Revision Application No.33 of 2020 and confirming the Trial Court's order dated 11 November 2019 under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which had directed the Defendant to pay Rs.10,27,780/- as outstanding rent for the period 1 December 2007 to January 2019. Holding that the Plaintiff's chart wrongly added 18% GST on the rent figure of Rs.6,500/- from 2007 onwards even though the Trial Court itself required deposit of only the principal rent from February 2019, the Court fixed the principal arrears up to January 2019 at Rs.8,71,000/-, modified the Trial Court's order accordingly (leaving Direction No.2 - deposit of Rs.6,500/- per month from February 2019 - unaffected), and also modified the Appellate Bench's order to that extent. The Defendants were given six weeks to pay/deposit the modified amount, failing which the Trial Court was to decide the Plaintiff's application for striking off the Defendants' defence.

2026:BHC-AS:13353

Megha 8_wp_17183_2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.17183 OF 2025

Arifa Jahangir Asaraf Shaikh and Ors.

...Petitioners

V/s.

Kanchan Nanadrajog Wd/o. Jaidevsingh and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Shilendra Agharkar i/b. Mr. Rizwan Merchant and Associates for the Petitioners.

Mr. Jamsheed Master i/b. Ms. Natasha Bhot for the Respondents.

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED: 17 MARCH 2026.

P.C.:

The Petition challenges order dated 26 March 2021 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, rejecting the Revision Application No.33 of 2020 preferred by the Petitioners and confirming the Trial Court’s order dated 11 November 2019.

Order dated 11 November 2019 is passed by the Trial Court in exercise of powers under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing the Petitioner/Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff amount of Rs.10,27,780/- being the outstanding rent in respect of the period from 1 December 2007 upto January-2019 with further direction to deposit rent

Page No.1 of 3 17 March 2026

Megha 8_wp_17183_2025

of Rs.6,500/- per month from February-2019 during pendency of the Suit.

I have heard Mr. Agharkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Master, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.

The only grievance that is urged before me is in respect of correctness of figure of Rs.10,27,780/- determined by the Trial Court. My attention is invited to the chart presented by the Plaintiff on the basis of which the Trial Court has picked up the figure of Rs.10,27,780/-. Said chart indicates that the Plaintiff has added 18% GST on the rent figure of Rs.6,500/- from the year 2007 onwards. The Trial Court itself has directed deposit of only principal amount of Rs.6,500/- per month from February2019. In that view of the matter, Defendants cannot be made liable to pay /deposit amount of GST from 1 Deceased 2007 to January-2019. Thus, an error to this extent needs to be corrected in the Trial Court’s order. Perusal of the chart presented by the Plaintiff would indicate that principal amount of arrears of rent upto January-2019 is Rs.8,71,000/-.

Accordingly, Trial Court’s order dated 11 November 2019 is modified by directing that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs amount of Rs.8,71,000/-towards arrears of rent upto January2019.Direction No.2 in the operative part of order dated 11 November 2019 shall remain unaffected. Order passed by the Appellate Bench shall also stand modified to the above extent.

Page No.2 of 3 17 March 2026

Megha 8_wp_17183_2025

1. Defendants would be at liberty to pay / deposit the modified amount within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the Trial Court shall proceed to decide application filed by the Plaintiff for striking off defence of the Defendants.

1. With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of .

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/03/2026 17:07:38

Page No.3 of 3 17 March 2026