Shree Giriraj Construction Co And Anr vs Dhanesh Rasiklal Shah And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010235822026

2026:BHC-AS:44393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7172 OF 2026
1. Shree Giriraj Construction Co.
A Partnership Firm, registered under
the provisions of the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932,
having its Office at Block No.4,
Wankhede Stadium, “D” Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020
2. Mr. Pankaj Mehta
Age about – 57 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Partner of Shree Giriraj Construction Co.
having address at Block No.4, Wankhede
Stadium, “D” Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020 …. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mr. Dhanesh Rasiklal Shah
Age about 81 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at 61, Mont Blanc,
Kemps Corner, Dady Seth Hill Road,
Mumbai – 400 036
2. Mrs. Rekha Dhanesh Shah .…
(Deleted since deceased)
having address 61, Mont Blanc,
Kemps Corner, Dady Seth Hill Road,
Mumbai – 400 036
2A. Ami Vora
Age about 53 years, Occ.: Business,
Residing at 213, Jolly Maket Apt 3,
G.D. Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai - 400 005
1/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

Being the daughter and heir and
legal representative of deceased
Respondent no.2
2B. Reshma Jhaveri
Age about 49 years, Occ.: Doctor
Residing at 173A, Kalpataru Solitaire,
N.S. No. 5, Near Kaifi Azmi Park,
Gulmohar Road, Mumbai – 400 009
Being the daughter and heir and legal
representative of deceased Respondent no.2
3. Raju Dhirajlal Shah
Age about 57 years, Occ. : Business,
having address at 31/32, Purab Apartments,
th
11 Road, 42, Ridge Road, Walkeshwar,
Mumbai – 400 006
4. Kokila Hasmukh Shah … Deleted (since
Age about 85 years, Occ.: Household deceased)
having address at B-1, 13th Floor,
Matru Ashish Building,
Opp. Russian Embassy, Nepean Sea Road,
Mumbai - 400 036.
4Α. ΚΑΜAL SHAH
Age about 58 years, Occ.: Business,
Residing at B-1, 13th Floor, Matru Ashish,
Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 036.
Being the daughter-in-law and heir
and legal representative of deceased
Respondent No.4
4B. ADITYA KEYUR SHAH
Age: 34 years, Occ.: Service
Residing at B-1, 13th Floor,
Matru Ashish, Nepean Sea Road,
Mumbai - 400 036.
Being the daughter-in-law and heir
and legal representative of deceased
Respondent No.4
2/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

5. MONA AKSHAY MEHΤΑ
Age about 56 years, Occ: Business
having address at 13, Nalini Kunj,
King's Circle, Mumbai – 400 019.
6. PINKY ANAND SHAH
through her Constituted Attorney
Mona A. Mehta,
Occ.: Business, having address
at 24, Mistry Park, 77, Warden Road,
Mumbai-400 036.
7. SUREKHA MAHENDRA SHAH
Age about 82 years, Occ.: Housewife
having address at 24, Mistry Park, 77,
Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 036.
8. ANJU BHUPENDRA SHAH
Age about 76 years, Occ.: Housewife
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai-400 026.
9. PUREX REALTY LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Registered under the provisions of
Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008
having address at 404, Commerce House,
40, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 023.
10. MANISH MAHIPAT SHAH
Age about 52 years, Occupation: Business,
Having address at 404, Commerce House,
140, N. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
11. SHILPA PANKAJ МЕНТА
Age about 59 years, Occ.: Business
having address at 301/302 Jupiter Building,
Next to Taj President Hotel,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.
3/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

12. AMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LLP
A Partnership firm having address
at "D" Block, Wankhede Stadium, D Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
13. NARAYAN KHIMJI SONI
Adult, age about 75 years, Occ.: Business
having address at 404, Commerce House,
140, N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
14. APURVA BHUPENDRA SHAH
Age about 54 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
15. DR. APARNA ROHAN SHAH
Age about 51 years, Occ.: Dental Surgeon,
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai – 400 026. …. Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7061 OF 2026
1. Purex Realty LLP
A Partnership Firm, having address
at 404, Commerce House, 140,
N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
2. Manish Mahipat Shah
Age about – 52 years, Occ. : Business,
having address at 404,
Commerce House, 140,
N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 …. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Mr. Dhanesh Rasiklal Shah
Age about 81 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at 61, Mont Blanc,
4/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

Kemps Corner, Dady Seth Hill Road,
Mumbai – 400 036
2. Mrs. Rekha Dhanesh Shah
(Deleted since deceased)
having address 61, Mont Blanc,
Kemps Corner, Dady Seth Hill Road,
Mumbai – 400 036
2A. Ami Vora
Age about 53 years, Occ.: Business,
Residing at 213, Jolly Maket Apt 3,
G.D. Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai - 400 005
Being the daughter and heir and
legal representative of deceased
Respondent no.2
2B. Reshma Jhaveri
Age about 49 years, Occ.: Doctor
Residing at 173A,
Kalpataru Solitaire, N.S. No. 5,
Near Kaifi Azmi Park, Gulmohar Road,
Mumbai – 400 009
Being the daughter and heir and legal
representative of deceased Respondent no.2
3. Raju Dhirajlal Shah
Age about 57 years, Occ. : Business,
having address at 31/32, Purab Apartments,
th
11 Road, 42, Ridge Road, Walkeshwar,
Mumbai – 400 006
4. Kokila Hasmukh Shah … Deleted (since
Age about 85 years, Occ.: Household deceased)
having address at B-1, 13th Floor,
Matru Ashish Building,Opp. Russian Embassy,
Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 036.
4Α. ΚΑΜAL SHAH
Age about 58 years, Occ.: Business,
5/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

Residing at B-1, 13th Floor, Matru Ashish,
Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 036.
Being the daughter-in-law and heir
and legal representative of deceased
Respondent No.4
4B. ADITYA KEYUR SHAH
Age: 34 years, Occ.: Service
Residing at B-1, 13th Floor,
Matru Ashish, Nepean Sea Road,
Mumbai - 400 036.
Being the daughter-in-law and heir
and legal representative of deceased
Respondent No.4
5. MONA AKSHAY MEHΤΑ
Age about 56 years, Occ: Business
having address at 13, Nalini Kunj,
King's Circle, Mumbai – 400 019.
6. PINKY ANAND SHAH
through her Constituted Attorney
Mona A. Mehta,
Occ.: Business, having address
at 24, Mistry Park, 77, Warden Road,
Mumbai-400 036.
7. SUREKHA MAHENDRA SHAH
Age about 82 years, Occ.: Housewife
having address at 24, Mistry Park, 77,
Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 036.
8. ANJU BHUPENDRA SHAH
Age about 76 years, Occ.: Housewife
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai-400 026.
9. SHREE GIRIRAJ CONSTRUCTION CO.
A Partnership Firm, having address at
“D” Block, Wankhede Stadium, D Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.
6/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

10. PANKAJ NANDKISHOR MEHTA
Age about 60 years, Occ.: Business
having address at 301/302 Jupiter Building,
Next to Taj President Hotel, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
11. SHILPA PANKAJ МЕНТА
Age about 59 years, Occ.: Business
having address at 301/302 Jupiter Building,
Next to Taj President Hotel,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.
12. AMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LLP
A Partnership firm having address
at "D" Block, Wankhede Stadium, D Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
13. NARAYAN KHIMJI SONI
Adult, age about 75 years, Occ.: Business
having address at 404, Commerce House,
140, N.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
14. APURVA BHUPENDRA SHAH
Age about 54 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
15. DR. APARNA ROHAN SHAH
Age about 51 years, Occ.: Dental Surgeon,
having address at 71, Mont Blanc,
August Kranti Road, Mumbai – 400 026. …. Respondents
*
Senior Advocate, Mr. Vineet Naik , Mr. Sunit Pillay, a/w Mr. Mahek A.
Kamdar, Mr. Krishit Nandu, Ms. Vishakha Dhaygude, i/b Kanga & Co. for
Petitioners in WP No. 7061 of 2026.
Mr. Sukand Kulkarni, a/w Mr. Mahek A. Kamdar, Mr. Sunit Pillay, a/w Mr.
Krishit Nandu, Ms. Vishakha Dhaygude, i/b Kanga & Co. for Petitioners in
WP No. 7172 of 2026.
7/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

Senior Advocate, Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Ms. Shruti Tulpule, Mr.
Sourasubha Ghosh. Mr. Anirban Sen, Ms. Tanvi Darji i/b Indus Law for
Respondent nos. 1 to 8 for both Petitions.
*
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
th
DATE : 30 October 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Both the Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and fact
and, therefore, are decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 7172
of 2026 is filed by Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, whereas Writ Petition
No. 7061 of 2026 is filed by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7.
th
3. The Petitions challenge the interim order dated 14 March 2024
passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit-10 in R.A.D.
Suit No.547 of 2023, whereby the Small Causes Court restrained the
Petitioners (Defendants) from developing the suit premises without
obtaining the consent of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
nd
4. The Petitions also challenge the order dated 2 December 2025
passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai,
dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioners. However, while dismissing
8/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

the Appeal, the Appellate Bench modified the injunction and restrained the
Petitioners from carrying out any development on the suit premises that may
affect or defeat the tenancy rights of the Respondents (Plaintiffs), pending
the decision of the Suit.
5. Thus, in effect, the Petitioners are challenging the concurrent orders of
injunction passed in the R.A.D. Suit, restraining them from developing the
suit property in a manner that may adversely affect or defeat the tenancy
rights of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
6. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petitions, in brief, are as
follows:
The premises forming the subject matter of the present proceedings
comprise two plots of land, namely: (i) a plot of land comprising 7,345.11
sq. mtrs. of pension and tax tenure and 1,015.89 sq. mtrs. of leasehold
tenure, aggregating in all to 8,361 sq. mtrs. or thereabouts, bearing Cadastral
Survey Nos. 1/1244 and 1244 (part) of Girgaon Division; and (ii) a plot of
land comprising 1,855.55 sq. mtrs. or thereabouts, of pension and tax tenure
(since redeemed), bearing Cadastral Survey Nos. 1/1244 and 1244 (part) of
Girgaon Division.
The aforesaid two plots of land are hereinafter collectively referred to
as the “said larger area”. The balance of the said larger area i.e. the part
9/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

excluding the area marked in purple and orange in the map attached to the
Plan is collectively referred to as the “suit premises”.
It is stated in the Plaint that the larger area, including the Suit
Premises, was originally owned by Bombay Parsi Panchayat Funds and
Properties. Mr. Shapoor Ardeshir Irani and Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Irani
were conducting a film studio under the name and style of “Jyoti Studio” in
the said larger area, including the Suit Premises.
7. An Assignment Agreement in the form of an Indenture was executed
th
on 8 September 1984 between Mr. Shapoor Ardeshir Irani and Mrs.
Khorshed Shapoor Irani, as assignors, and the Plaintiffs, namely Mahendra
Rasiklal Shah, Hashmukh Rasiklal Shah, Bhupendra Rasiklal Shah, the
Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, Taraben Dhirubhai Shah, and the Plaintiff No.
3, as assignees.
8. The said assignees thereafter constituted an Association of Persons in
the name and style of “Jyoti Studio AOP” (“JSAOP”) for the purpose of
administering and managing the affairs of the said larger area, including the
Suit Premises. Upon acquiring the beneficial interest in the business of the
film studio together with the benefits of the tenancy rights in respect of the
Suit Premises, JSAOP regularly and consistently paid the rent and property
taxes in respect of the larger area, including the Suit Premises.
10/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

9. It is further stated that, after JSAOP became the tenant in respect of
the larger area, various structures situated therein were sublet. Such
subletting was carried out with the express permission, knowledge and
consent of Defendant No.1, being the owner thereof. Between the years
1991 and 2018, Defendant No. 1 entered into various agreements with the
sub-tenants occupying portions of the Suit Property for providing them
permanent alternate accommodation. Consequently, from the said larger
area, only the Suit Premises remained in the tenancy and possession of
JSAOP.
th
10. A public notice dated 18 December 2020 was issued by M/s. Kanga
& Co., Advocates, inter alia , intimating that Defendant No.1 intended to sell,
transfer and/or assign the suit premises and the possessory rights therein to
any person claiming or having an interest therein, and calling upon persons
having any objection thereto to communicate the same in response to the
said public notice.
11. Pursuant to the said public notice, the Plaintiffs raised their objections
thereto and asserted their lawful tenancy rights in respect of the suit
premises. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 executed/granted a Power of Attorney
in favour of Defendant No. 6 authorising Defendant No. 6 to undertake
redevelopment of the suit premises.
11/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

12. The Respondents (Plaintiffs) state that Defendant Nos.1 to 6 were
attempting to deal with, transfer and/or redevelop the suit premises in a
manner that sought to bypass and/or defeat the lawful rights and interests of
the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs, being the lawful tenants in respect of the suit
premises, are entitled to protection of their tenancy rights and, in the event of
redevelopment, to be provided premises admeasuring an area equivalent to
or greater than the area presently occupied by them in the new building to be
constructed on the suit premises, in accordance with their lawful rights and
entitlements.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances, and apprehending that the Defendants
would create third-party rights and/or proceed with the redevelopment of the
suit premises to the prejudice of the Plaintiffs and without safeguarding their
lawful tenancy rights, the Plaintiffs were constrained to institute the present
declaratory suit and seek appropriate interim and injunctive reliefs against
the Defendants.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED Senior Advocate, Mr. Vineet Naik , FOR THE
PETITIONERS:
14. It is submitted that the real controversy is not whether the Plaintiffs'
tenancy rights survive, but whether the existence of such tenancy rights
confers a veto over redevelopment by the owner. The two concepts are
entirely distinct.
12/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

15. The impugned orders proceed on the assumption that because the
Plaintiffs have prima facie established tenancy rights, redevelopment cannot
proceed without their consent. That proposition has no support either under
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or under settled landlord-tenant
jurisprudence. In other words, a tenant cannot insist that the property must
forever remain in its old condition and that the owner cannot demolish
dangerous structures or the redevelopment cannot be undertaken unless
every tenant agrees. If such a proposition were accepted, no redevelopment
of old tenanted properties in Mumbai would ever be possible.
16. The Trial Court itself records that landlord cannot be restrained from
alienating or dealing with his property. Having accepted this proposition, it
nevertheless restrains redevelopment merely because consent has not been
obtained. This is internally inconsistent.
The relevant question ought to have been "Will redevelopment
extinguish tenancy rights?". The Petitioners have repeatedly stated that every
lawful occupant shall be accommodated in the redeveloped building. Once
rehabilitation is offered, no irreparable injury survives.
17. The Petitioners do not seek to extinguish tenancy rights. On the
contrary, they undertake to recognise and rehabilitate every lawful occupant
in the redeveloped premises. The opposition is primarily at the instance of
13/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

JSAOP, a head tenant admittedly not residing in any structure. The
injunction therefore protects neither possession nor tenancy, but effectively
grants a halt to redevelopment of hazardous buildings. Once rehabilitation is
assured and tenancy rights remain preserved, neither irreparable injury nor
balance of convenience can justify restraining redevelopment of the
Petitioners' own property.
18. The legal error in the impugned orders is that they treat "consent of
the tenants" as a precondition for redevelopment, whereas the law only
requires that their tenancy rights be preserved and that they be restored to
occupation in accordance with law.
19. It is submitted that the principal error arising from both the impugned
judgments is the conflation of two legally distinct propositions, namely, (i)
protection of an existing tenancy, if duly established, and (ii) a purported
right in the tenant to restrain the owner from developing his own land. Even
assuming, without admitting, that the Plaintiff has established a subsisting
tenancy in respect of the identified structures, such tenancy cannot, by itself,
operate as an indefinite embargo upon the development of the Petitioner's
land. The rights of a tenant are referable to the premises actually let and
occupied. The mere existence of a tenancy does not confer upon the tenant
proprietary or development rights over the entirety of the underlying land.
14/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

20. This distinction assumes particular significance under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999. Section 7(9) defines “premises” as essentially a
building or a part of a building let or given on license separately, together
with the grounds, gardens, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant
thereto. It is therefore submitted that a mere open space or vacant ground,
without a building to which it is appurtenant, cannot be brought within the
definition of “premises” under Section 7(9).
21. Consequently, the Plaintiff cannot merely describe the J.S.A.O.P. as a
tenant of the entire larger property and, on that basis alone, seek an
injunction restraining development over the whole property. The Plaintiff
must first identify, with specificity, the building or part of the building
constituting the tenanted premises and establish the extent of the tenancy in
respect thereof.
22. It is further submitted that, in law, no injunction could have been
granted in respect of the entire parcel of land admeasuring approximately
8,300 sq. mtrs. merely on the basis of an alleged tenancy pertaining to
certain identified structures situated thereon. Such an order would
impermissibly enlarge the protection, if any, available to the tenant beyond
the confines of the tenanted premises and would, in effect, confer upon the
tenant a right to obstruct the owner from developing or otherwise dealing
15/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

with portions of the land which do not form part of the tenancy. The
injunction, therefore, could not lawfully extend to the entire parcel of land
when the alleged tenancy itself was confined to specific structures.
23. It is further submitted that the Respondents (Plaintiffs) have failed to
identify the very subject matter of the alleged tenancy and this goes to the
root of the prima facie case. The Plaintiffs rely principally upon Indenture /
th
Deed of Assignment dated 8 September 1984. A reading of that document
shows what was assigned was essentially, the beneficial interest in the Studio
business, goodwill of that business, rights connected with that business and
incidentally the benefit of the tenancy rights of the premises in which that
business was being carried on. Defendants submits that the Respondents/
Plaintiffs cannot obtain protection over an amorphous parcel of land
unconnected with the building structures. Under Section 7(9) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the statutory definition no longer
independently includes “any land not being used for agricultural purposes”,
similar unlike Section 5 Sub-clause (8) of the Former Bombay Rent Act.
Thus, before obtaining an injunction affecting the entirety of the Petitioners’
property, the Plaintiffs were at the minimum required to demonstrate, which
structure was let, to whom, its area, its location, the terms of the letting and
the nexus between the identified structure and each Plaintiff.
16/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

24. It is submitted that the Consent Decree of 1985 is of significance to
the present proceedings. The Plaintiff, JSAOP, has failed to demonstrate that
it is in actual physical occupation of any identified structure upon the suit
property as a tenant. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs have created various sub-
tenancies in the structures standing upon the property, and the persons in
actual physical occupation thereof are the alleged sub-tenants.
25. It is further submitted that JSAOP has not been shown to be physically
occupying or using any identified structure for its own purposes. This aspect
is material while considering the grant of an interlocutory injunction, which
is an equitable and discretionary relief intended to prevent irreparable injury.
26. A party which is not itself in physical occupation of any identified
structure cannot seek a blanket injunction against the owners merely by
asserting an overarching tenancy in respect of the land, particularly when the
persons actually occupying the structures can, if otherwise entitled, be
independently protected by appropriate orders of the Court.
27. In these circumstances, the absence of actual physical occupation by
J.S.A.O.P. assumes considerable significance in determining whether the
Plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and
the likelihood of irreparable injury warranting the grant of an omnibus
interlocutory injunction.
17/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

28. It is submitted that the Trial Court, having itself recognised the lawful
rights of the owners, nevertheless proceeded to grant an injunction which is
inconsistent with and contrary to such recognition. It is further submitted
that no tenant can claim any vested right in the development potential of the
owners’ land. The balance of convenience lies overwhelmingly in favour of
the Petitioners, and any restraint upon the Petitioners’ lawful exercise of
their ownership and development rights would cause them irreparable injury,
whereas no comparable prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The
balance of convenience and the consideration of irreparable injury, therefore,
clearly and decisively operate in favour of the Petitioners./
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 8. :
29. Per contra , learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Godbole , appearing for the
Respondents, submits that both the Courts below have concurrently granted
an injunction and that this Court ought not to interfere with such concurrent
interim orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is
submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below are based upon a
proper appreciation of the material placed on record and do not suffer from
any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by
this Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the scope of
interference with discretionary interim orders is limited and that, unless the
18/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

discretion exercised by the Courts below is shown to be arbitrary, capricious
or contrary to settled principles of law, no interference is warranted.
30. It is submitted that the original owner of the lands bearing cadastral
survey numbers 1/1244 and 1244/1, part of Girgaon division, at Shankar
Sheth Road, KBA Irani Bridge, Nana Chowk bearing C.S.No. 1244 of
Girgaum Division was Bombay Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties.
Bombay Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties had granted tenancy rights in
respect of the land and structures in favour of Mr. Shapoor Ardeshir Irani
and Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Irani, who were running a film studio ['Jyoti
Studio'] from the said tenanted premises. It is submitted that by the Deed of
Assignment dated 8th September 1984, the business, goodwill and the
benefit of the tenancy rights of the premises in which the business was
carried on were assigned in favour of the assignees. The Deed of Assignment
dated 8th September 1984 clearly stipulates that the business of Jyoti Studios
was assigned in favour of the 10 Assignees, together with the benefit of
tenancy rights of the "premises" in which the said business is being carried
on land bearing C.S. No. 1244 of Girgaum Division. Defendant No. 2, Mr.
Pankaj Mehta is an Assignee and tenant; and he is also the Partner of the
landlord Firm Giriraj Construction Company. It is submitted that "Premises"
are defined in Section 7 (9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
19/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

[corresponding with Section 5 (8) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947], which read as under - Premises
means any building or part of a building let or given on license separately,
other than a farm building, including :
7. Definitions.
(9) “premises” means any building or part of a building
let or given on licence separately (other than a farm
building) including,-
(i) the gardens, grounds, garages and out-houses,
if any, appurtenant to such building or part
of a building,
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of
a building for the more beneficial enjoyment
thereof, but does not include a room or other
accommodation in a hotel or lodging house;
31. Thus, the premises in question were the buildings / structures of Jyoti
Studio along with the land appurtenant thereto consisting of open areas,
open car park, internal roads etc. Significantly, Petitioner No.1 acquired the
land bearing cadastral survey numbers 1/1244 and 1244/1 only after the
execution of Deed of Assignment dated 8th September 1984, under the
th
Consent Decree dated 5 February 1985, and such acquisition was expressly
subject to the then existing tenancies. The Appellate Bench has recorded this
position in terms and has further recorded that the right, title and interest of
Petitioner No.1 was subject to the monthly tenancy rights of Assignees.
20/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

32. The 'tenants' thereafter formed an Association of Persons known as
Jyoti Studios Association of Persons [JSAOP]. The tenants, with the consent
of landlord (Petitioner No. 1) created sub-tenancies of the super structures /
galas. The Agreement dated 20th September 1991, executed between the
landlord (Giriraj Construction Company), Jyoti Studio AOP as the main
tenant and a sub-tenant (Mrs. Divya Jagdish Sharma), expressly records that
Jyoti Studio was the tenant of the property and had various structures
thereon given on sub-tenancy. The learned Trial Court relied upon this
document while recording a prima facie finding in favour of the Plaintiffs,
that the tenancy was not only of super structures/galas. The subsequent
conduct of the parties also supports the Plaintiffs' case. Sometime in the year
2000, certain galas and a portion of land under the galas, which are marked
in purple and orange in the Map filed along with the suit and were
surrendered in favour of Narayan Khimji Soni (Defendant No. 7 & Partner
of Defendant No. 5). To elaborate, the following Deeds of Surrender are on
record-
Sr. No. Parties Area Pg. No.
1 Kokila Shah and 359.57 sq. ft. (surrender 53-69
Defendant No. 7 of tenancy of Gala)
2 Hasmukh Shah 359.57 sq. ft. (surrender 70-86
and Defendant No. 7 of tenancy of Gala)
3 Kokila Shah and 359.57 sq. ft. (surrender 87-103
Defendant No. 7 of tenancy of Gala)
21/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

2876.63 sq. ft.
(surrender tenancy of
land)
104-136
4 Jyoti Studios & Khimji
Soni HUF
Signed by
Pankaj D5
33. It is submitted that in the Deed of Surrender executed by Jyoti Studios
records that Messrs. Shri Giriraj Company, declared that Mr. Shapoor
Ardashir Irani and Mrs. Khorshed Irani, both carrying on business in the
firm name and style of Messrs. Jyoti Studios, were the monthly tenants in
respect of the said larger property at measuring 10,000 sq. yds., equivalent to
8,361 sq. m or thereabouts.
34. M/s. Shri Giriraj Construction Company were thus seized of or
otherwise entitled to the larger property, more particularly described in the
first schedule hereunder written, subject to the monthly tenancy rights of
Messrs. Jyoti Studio and the tenancy rights of diverse subtenants in respect
of dwelling houses, buildings, and structures standing on the said larger
property.
35. It is also submitted that the Petitioner cannot bypass the subsisting
tenancy rights of the Respondents by dealing directly with the sub-tenants. It
is a settled position of law that a landlord cannot, by directly entering into
agreements or arrangements with the sub-tenants, circumvent or defeat the
subsisting tenancy rights of the tenants.
22/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

36. Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has restrained the
landlord from alienating or otherwise dealing with the property. The orders
merely recognise that any such dealing with the property would remain
subject to the subsisting tenancy rights of the Respondents. The protection
granted by the Courts is confined to preventing any development or
construction, without the consent of the Plaintiffs, which may adversely
affect, defeat, or prejudice their tenancy rights. Any development undertaken
in disregard of the said tenancy rights would cause irreparable prejudice to
the Plaintiffs.
37. It is further submitted that the Appellate Bench has, in fact, suitably
modified the operative portion of the Trial Court’s order. The injunction now
operates only against such development or construction as may affect or
defeat the tenancy rights of the parties. It does not prevent the Petitioner
from dealing with or otherwise transacting in respect of the property in any
manner whatsoever, provided that such dealing does not affect, prejudice, or
defeat the subsisting tenancy rights of the Respondents.
38. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and having
perused the material on record, it is evident that the documents placed on
record, particularly the Indenture dated 8th August 1984, assign rights in
favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of the subject property. The relevant
23/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

portion thereof is reproduced hereinbelow :
WHEREAS :-
(a) The Assignors have been and are carrying on
business of running and conducting a film studio in
partnership in the name and style of “Jyoti Studio” at
Kennedy bridge (now known as “Khanbahadur Ardeshir
Irani Bridge”) Bombay – 400 007, as the only two
partners thereof.
(b) The Assignors, as the only partners of the said
business, are seized and possessed of certain equipment in
connection with the said business.
(c) The Assignors have agreed to sell and assign to
the Assignees the said business together with the goodwill
thereof and also together with the said equipment at or for
the prize of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs).
“ They the Assignors do hereby sell, assign, transfer, grant and
convey UNTO the Assignees all the beneficial interest of the
Assignors in or to the said business TOGETHER WITH the
goodwill thereof and TOGETHER WITH the benefit of all rights
in connection with the said business And as incidental thereto (and
without any monitory consideration) TOGETHER WITH the
benefit of the tenancy rights of the premises in which the said
business is being carried on (on land bearing C.S. No. 1244 and
part of 1245 of Girgaum Division, in the Registration Sub-District
and District of Bombay City and Bombay Suburban, TO HAVE
AND TO HOLD the same UNTO and the use of the Assignees
absolutely and for ever AND the Assignors do and each of them
doth hereby covenant with the Assignees that they the Assignors
are the only legal owners of the said business and of the goodwill
and are entitled to sell and assign the same and that the Assignors
hereby further declare that the said business and / or goodwill are
not mortgaged or otherwise encumbered to anyone else .”
24/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

39. Thus, under the Deed of Assignment, Mr. Shapoor Irani and Mrs.
Khorshed Irani assigned to the Plaintiff the benefit of the tenancy rights in
respect of the premises in which the business of running a film studio under
the name and style of “Jyoti Studio” was being carried on. The various
agreements for surrender of tenancy executed between the Petitioners and
the sub-tenants also indicate that such surrender was subject to the subsisting
tenancy rights of M/s. Jyoti Studio in respect of a portion of the larger
property admeasuring approximately 8,361 sq. mtrs. It is expressly recorded
in those documents that M/s. Jyoti Studio were monthly tenants in respect of
the said larger property admeasuring approximately 8,361 sq. mtrs. The sub-
tenancy surrender agreements executed between the Petitioners and the sub-
tenant clearly acknowledge that the area of the Jyoti Studio tenancy is 8,361
sq. mts. It is, therefore, not open to the Petitioners to contend otherwise.
40. Thus, prima facie , both the Courts below have concluded that the
Plaintiffs are tenants of the larger portion of the property of 8,361 sq. mts. It
is also to be noted that the surrender of tenancy by the sub-tenants in favour
of the Plaintiffs is not, by itself, sufficient and is, in any event, without
prejudice to the rights of the tenants of the respective tenements, as can be
seen from the documents evidencing the release of sub-tenancy.
25/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

41. These documents, prima facie, indicate that the Plaintiffs have tenancy
rights over the entire larger property, including the structures standing
thereon, particularly in view of the Indenture of 1984. Both the Courts below
have prima facie concluded that the Plaintiffs are tenants of the entire larger
property and that the proposed development cannot be undertaken to the
detriment of their tenancy rights.
42. The Petitioners’ contention that JSAOP cannot restrain the
redevelopment is misconceived. JSAOP has been held prima facie to be a
tenant of the entire larger property, and the proposed redevelopment would
directly affect its tenancy rights in respect of the said property. Accordingly,
the injunction operates to permit redevelopment only to the extent that it
does not disturb, prejudice or interfere with the tenancy rights of JSAOP.
43. The prima facie view taken by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court is based upon the Indenture of 1984 and the documents recording the
surrender of tenancy executed between the Petitioner–Giriraj and the sub-
tenants. This Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, would not be
justified in interfering with such prima facie findings, particularly when both
the Courts below have taken a concurrent view. Accordingly, in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction, no interference with the concurrent interim orders
passed by the Courts below is warranted. No case is made out for
26/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30

interference.
44. Any observations or findings recorded by this Court or the Courts
below shall be treated as prima facie observations, and the Trial Court shall
independently decide the Suit on its own merits, uninfluenced by such
observations or findings.
45. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL
DUSANE
Digitally signed by
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE
Date: 2026.10.31
14:59:48 +0530
27/27
902,901 WPs 7172, 7061.26.doc Dusane
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:10:30
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)