Dismissed¶9

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. v. Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026WP/3036/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

amendment of plaint allowed by trial court upheld; subsequent events during pendency of suit; demolition of leased premises by Municipal Corporation; tenancy rights not extinguished by demolition; Section 268 / Section 268(1) Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949 notice; permanent alternate accommodation; monthly rent Rs.15,000/-; Civil Judge Senior Division Kalyan; writ petitions dismissed; Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 14 SCC 1 relied on.

What did the court decide?

Since the amendment was necessitated on account of the subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit, the learned Civil Judge was justified in allowing the Application for amendment. ¶7

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. vs Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dated 13 November 2025 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, allowing the Applications for amendment of the Plaint, i.e., whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in allowing the amendment.

¶2

Court's answer

Since the amendment was necessitated on account of the subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit, the learned Civil Judge was justified in allowing the Application for amendment.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Destruction or demolition of leased property does not, ipso facto, extinguish the rights of the tenant.

¶7

Key takeaways

Whether ultimately the Plaintiffs succeed or not is an altogether different matter.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), N.J. Jamadar, J. — Writ Petitions Nos. 3036 and 3037 of 2026, dismissed on 7 April 2026. Petitioners (original defendants) challenged the order dated 13 November 2025 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, allowing the Respondents-Plaintiffs' applications for amendment of the plaint. The plaint originally sought a declaration of tenancy over the suit premises and restraint of Municipal Corporation action pursuant to a notice under Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949; during pendency the Corporation demolished the premises (28 January 2025) and the Plaintiffs sought amendment for permanent alternate accommodation or, alternatively, Rs.15,000/- per month rent from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Holding: as the amendment was necessitated by subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit, the learned Civil Judge was justified in allowing it; destruction or demolition of leased property does not ipso facto extinguish the tenant's rights (relying on Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 1); whether the Plaintiffs ultimately succeed is an altogether different matter. Petitions dismissed.

¶1

33-34-WP-3036-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3036 OF 2026

¶4

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr ..Petitioners Versus Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr …Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 2026

¶7

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr ..Petitioners Versus Mangesh Keshav Salunkhe and Anr …Respondents

¶8

Adv Jitendra H Oak, for the Petitioners in both Petitions.

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 7^th APRIL 2026

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPAL RAMCHANDRASANKPALDate:2026.04.15 18:32:07 +0530

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 13^th November 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, whereby the Applications for amendment in the Plaint came to be allowed.

¶14

The Respondents-Plaintiffs were initially seeking the relief of declaration that they were the tenants in respect of the suit premises and sought to restrain the Municipal Corporation from taking action pursuant to the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under

¶15

1/3

¶16

ARS

¶17

33-34-WP-3036-2026.DOC

¶18

Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. During the pendency of the said Suit, the Municipal Corporation has demolished the subject premises and the Plaintiffs have been dispossessed.

¶19

On account of the subsequent developments, the RespondentsPlaintiff sought to amend the Plaint and seek reliefs against the Petitioners, namely, to provide permanent alternate accommodation in the building to be constructed on the suit premises, and, in the alternative, till the alternate accommodation is made available to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, towards rent.

¶20

The learned Civil Judge was of the view that though the suit premises has been demolished by the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation has been deleted from the array of the Defendants, the nature of the Suit does not change. The demolition of the premises does not extinguish the rights of the plaintiffs in the premises.

¶21

The principal prayer in the suit is that of declaration that there has been a relationship of tenant and landlord between plaintiff and petitioner no. 1 – original defendant no. 2. Injunction was sought to restrain the Municipal Corporation – original defendant no. 1 from acting upon the notices under Section 268(1) of the Maharashtra

¶22

2/3

¶23

ARS

¶24

33-34-WP-3036-2026.DOC

¶25

Municipal Corporation Act. During the pendency of the suit, the suit premises was demolished by the Municipal Corporation on 28^th January, 2025.

¶26

In the aforesaid backdrop since the amendment was necessitated on account of the subsequent developments during the pendency of the suit, the learned Civil Judge was justified in allowing the Application for amendment. Destruction or demolition of leased property does not, ipso facto, extinguish the rights of the tenant. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons Vs. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & ors.¹ , wherein it was enunciated that, once the right of lease is transferred in favour of the lessee, the destruction of a house/building constructed on the leased property does not determine the tenancy rights of occupant which is incidental to the contract of the lease which continues to exist between the parties. Whether ultimately the Plaintiffs succeed or not is an altogether different matter.

¶27

Thus this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.

¶28

Petitions stand dismissed.

¶29

1 (2014) 14 SCC 1

¶30

3/3

¶31

ARS

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. v. Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Raghunath Kathe and Anr. v. Sneha Suhas Salvi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs the Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Mandakini Pudnalik Patil Decd Thr Lhr Sudhakar P Patil Decd Thr Lhrs vs Shree Sahyadri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Kalwa

Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Assistant Director, Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Anr.

Bhavitha Devaiah Proprietor of Green Tech Star vs Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

Ramdas Hiraman Ambekar vs Sunil Kashinath Kamathe and Ors.

Daruwalawadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Sita Wd/O Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors.