Dismissed¶15

Jitendra S/O Pramod Masram v. Sanjay S/O Premnarayan Mishra

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/4561/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction of tenant; Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 S.15 and S.16(1)(k); default in rent and permitted increases; loss of S.15(3) protection; dilapidation ground rejected for want of evidence; non-joinder of tenant's legal heirs plea rejected (raised first time, unpleaded); landlord best judge of requirements; concurrent findings, no perversity, no Article 227 interference; Rs.7,383/- arrears with 15% simple interest; Order XX Rule 12 CPC mesne profits enquiry; WP No.4561/2025, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, Khubalkar J., decided 09/03/2026; dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The non-joinder contention cannot be entertained: there were no pleadings in the written statement on this point and it was not raised before the Appellate Court; being raised for the first time in the writ petition, it is not entertained. ¶10

Jitendra S/O Pramod Masram vs Sanjay S/O Premnarayan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction decree is unsustainable owing to non-joinder of the other legal heirs of the original tenant. +4 more

¶5

Court's answer

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and permitted increases are upheld; the tenant failed to attract Section 15(3) protection and the landlord became entitled to a decree of eviction under Section 15; the petitioner demonstrated no perversity.

¶9

Key takeaways

Eviction on the ground that the property was in a dilapidated condition (Section 16(1)(k)) was not granted, there being no cogent evidence.ratio¶9
It is trite law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements; in the instant case the landlord, having established the grounds of eviction on evidence and in view of concurrent findings of default, is entitled to recovery of possession of the tenanted premises.ratio¶12
The reasons of the trial Court and the well-reasoned judgment of the Appellate Court are sound, plausible and free of perversity; no indulgence is warranted with the impugned judgments in writ jurisdiction under Article 227.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Khubalkar, J.; reserved 21/01/2026, pronounced 09/03/2026) dismissed a tenant's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the eviction decree dated 27.02.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No.306/2016 (Small Causes Court, Nagpur), as confirmed by the Appellate Court on 04.03.2025 in Regular Civil Appeal No.85/2023. The suit by the landlord under Sections 15 and 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 succeeded on the ground of the tenant's default in payment of rent and permitted increases — the tenant failing to attract Section 15(3) protection — while eviction on the ground of dilapidated condition under Section 16(1)(k) was refused for want of cogent evidence. The plea of non-joinder of the other legal heirs of the original tenant was rejected as it was neither pleaded in the written statement nor raised before the Appellate Court. The concurrent findings were held free of perversity; the landlord being the best judge of his requirements, the decree of eviction was upheld. The decree included Rs.7,383/- towards arrears of rent and permitted increases with 15% simple interest and an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC for mesne profits. Reliance was placed on Chandiram S/o. Dariyanumal Ahuja Vs. Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha (Writ Petition No.1101/2007, decided 25.06.2012) and Babulal S/o. Fakirchand Agrawal Vs. Suresh S/o. Kedarnath Malpani and Others (Civil Revision Application No.76/2010, decided 12.06.2017). Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3929

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4561 OF 2025

¶7

PETITIONER : Jitendra s/o Pramod Masram, Aged Ori. Defendant about 45 years, Occu. Service, R/o House No.99/3, Ward No.67, Near Kasturba Library, Sadar, Nagpur-440001. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENT : Sanjay s/o Premnarayan Mishra, Aged Ori. Plaintiff about 66 years, Occupation- Business, R/o ‘Shriti’, 103, Mount Road, Behind Upavan Lawn, Sadar, Nagpur-440001.

¶8

¶9

Mr. A.S. Dhore, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.H. Shams, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 21/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 09/03/2026

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

This writ petition was extensively heard at the stage of admission and having considered the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent, the matter is admitted and taken up for final disposal.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner/original defendant has assailed the judgment and order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Small

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.306/2016, which was upheld by the Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 in Regular Civil Appeal No.85/2023.

¶19

The controversy involved in the instant petition arises out of a civil suit filed by the respondent for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner's father was a tenant of the suit premises consisting of two rooms situated at Plot No.11, bearing Municipal Corporation House No.92 in Ward No.67, Near Kasturba Library, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur. The petitioner's father was a tenant of the Siria Family and was paying rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month for the suit property. The respondent/original plaintiff purchased the suit from the Siria Family by registered Sale Deed dated 05.05.2005 and thereafter, the petitioner's father as a tenant started paying rent to the respondent.

¶20

In the year 2016, the respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”) and also claimed for recovery of arrears of rent and permitted increases with interest from the tenant. The suit was contested on merits by both the parties. After considering the evidence led on behalf of both the parties,

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 27.02.2023, decreed the suit and the defendant was directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property within 30 days from the date of the decree. The defendant was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,383/- towards arrears of rent and permitted increases to the plaintiff along with simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the entire amount. Apart from this, the trial Court has also directed an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for determining the mesne profits.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the tenant (petitioner herein) preferred an appeal under Section 34 of the Act, which was contested on merits by the landlord. By judgment and decree dated 04.03.2025, the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged both these judgments and decrees by way of the instant petition.

¶27

Advocate Mr. A.S. Dhore, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned decree in the suit for eviction is unsustainable, being passed, despite non-joinder of other legal heirs

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

of the original tenant to the suit. He submitted that the landlord failed to demonstrate that the suit premises were in dilapidated condition and further that the landlord was entitled to claim any arrears of rent or permissible increases within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act. He also submitted that the landlord is having two other properties which could be made available and in view of the comparative hardship suffered by the tenant, the suit deserved to be dismissed.

¶33

Per contra Mr. Shams, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and vehemently submitted that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had recorded concurrent findings based on the evidence available before them, which do not require interference on any count. He submitted that the primary contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, cannot be entertained in absence of any pleadings in the written statement. He submitted that the other ground about the suit premises being not in dilapidated condition, are also unsustainable in view of the specific findings recorded by both the Courts below. He submitted that this ground was also not even raised before the First Appellate Court and as such, the same is devoid of merit and substance.

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on several judgments including the judgment in the matter of Chandiram S/o. Dariyanumal Ahuja Vs. Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha in Writ Petition No.1101/2007 decided on 25.06.2012 and judgment in the matter of Babulal S/o. Fakirchand Agrawal Vs. Suresh S/o. Kedarnath Malpani and Others in Civil Revision Application No.76/2010 decided on 12.06.2017. By highlighting the legal position elucidated in these judgments, he submitted that the landlord is entitled for decree and eviction under Section 15 and 16(1)(k) of the Act, in view of the evidence which has come on record in the instant case.

¶39

The rival contentions thus fall for my consideration. While considering the controversy involved in the instant petition, it has to be noted that the petitioner is a tenant who is occupying the shop premises since several years and was a tenant of the Siria Family. The respondent herein has purchased the property from Siria Family in the year 2005 and thereafter, the petitioner became tenant of the respondent. The suit premises being two shops situated at Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur, are situated at a prime commercial location having lot of commercial potential.

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

The landlord has filed the suit under Section 15 of the Act and on the basis of the evidence on record has proved that the tenant has committed defaults in payment of regular rent and in clearing the arrears of rent and thus, he failed to attract the protection under Section 15(3) of the Act. On the basis of the evidence available before the Courts below, it has been held that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and permitted increases within the ambit of Section 15 and therefore, the landlord became entitled for decree of eviction. Further, the landlord has claimed eviction under Section 16(1)(k) of the Act, however, in absence of any cogent evidence, the eviction on account of property being in dilapidated condition was not granted.

¶45

The findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding the tenant’s default in payment of rent and permitted increases are upheld by the Appellate Court. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity with these concurrent findings. Although, the arguments are advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the suit deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties since the other legal heirs of the tenant were not joined as parties, it has to be noted that there are no pleadings in the written statement in this regard, neither any contentions were raised before the Appellate Court and as such, these

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

contentions raised for the first time in this petition need not to be entertained and are not entertained.

¶51

The position of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent is not disputed and the same is not even controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The legal position with respect to the purport of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, is duly considered by both the Courts below and as such, the reliance placed by the counsel for the respondent on the judgment is appropriate.

¶52

It is trite law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and is entitled for the recovery of possession of the tenanted premises once he establishes the available grounds for eviction. In the instant case, the landlord has established the grounds of eviction based on the evidence led before the Court. It is pertinent to note that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of tenant’s default in payment of rent and permitted increases within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act. Further it is to be noted that the tenant is occupying the premises since decades and in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, the landlord is now entitled for a decree of eviction.

Pvf

WP-4561-2025 J..odt

Judgment

I have given anxious consideration to all the relevant factual and legal aspects. On careful reading of the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it become clear that the evidence on record is properly appreciated and the findings are recorded on the basis of the available evidence on record. The reasons recorded by the trial Court are sound and plausible and no perversity is seen while entertaining the appeal under Section 34 of the Act. The Appellate Court has given due consideration to all the relevant factual and legal aspects and by a well reasoned judgment, dismissed the appeal thereby, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. I do not find any perversity with any of these judgments, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶58

Having regard to the above mentioned factual and legal aspects and on giving anxious consideration to all the relevant evidence on record, no indulgence is warranted with the impugned judgments under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶59

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶60

( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶61

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁

¶62

Pvf

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the eviction decree is unsustainable owing to non-joinder of the other legal heirs of the original tenant.¶5
The court held
The non-joinder contention cannot be entertained: there were no pleadings in the written statement on this point and it was not raised before the Appellate Court; being raised for the first time in the writ petition, it is not entertained.ratio¶10
2.
Whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent and permitted increases so as to lose protection under Section 15(3) of the Act, entitling the landlord to a decree of eviction under Section 15.¶9
The court held
The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenant committed default in payment of rent and permitted increases are upheld; the tenant failed to attract Section 15(3) protection and the landlord became entitled to a decree of eviction under Section 15; the petitioner demonstrated no perversity.ratio¶9
3.
Whether the suit premises were in a dilapidated condition so as to justify eviction under Section 16(1)(k) of the Act.¶9
The court held
Eviction on the ground that the property was in a dilapidated condition (Section 16(1)(k)) was not granted, there being no cogent evidence.ratio¶9
4.
Whether comparative hardship — the landlord having two other properties which could be made available — required dismissal of the eviction suit.¶5
The court held
It is trite law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements; in the instant case the landlord, having established the grounds of eviction on evidence and in view of concurrent findings of default, is entitled to recovery of possession of the tenanted premises.ratio¶12
5.
Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from perversity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.¶13
The court held
The reasons of the trial Court and the well-reasoned judgment of the Appellate Court are sound, plausible and free of perversity; no indulgence is warranted with the impugned judgments in writ jurisdiction under Article 227.ratio¶14

Jitendra S/O Pramod Masram v. Sanjay S/O Premnarayan Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra S/O Pramod Masram v. Sanjay S/O Premnarayan Mishra

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

Prashant Ramchandra Kinage and Another vs Vilas Shankarrao Moghe and Others

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar vs Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Radheshyam S/O Kushal Karanjkar vs Hansraj S/O Mahendra Tighare and Others

Barrister Sheshrao Wankhede 56TH Birth Anniversary Pratishan Thr. President and Anr. vs Grievance Committee, Rashtriya Tukdoi Maharaj Nagpur University, Thr. Chairman and Anr.

Sau. Hemlata W/O Shrikrushna Andhare vs the Dist. Co-Op. Election Officer/ Divisional Jt. Registrar,Co-Op. Society, Amravati and Ors.

Prashant Ramchandra Kinage and Another vs Vilas Shankarrao Moghe and Others