Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:2961
28. Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2026
initially filed as SECOND APPEAL NO.68 OF 2026
APPELLANT
(Ori. Defendant)
On R.A.
:- Wasima Ashpak Sayyad
Aged about – 40 years, Occup – Medical
Stores, R/o. – Shivaji Chowk, Bramhapuri,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.
..VERSUS..
:-
Sau. Mayabai W/o Ramuji Meher
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Plaintiff)
Aged about 57 years, Occu. – Household,
R/o Shahu Nagar, Delanwadi, Bramhapuri,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.
On R.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. M.S. Thengre, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. T he Second Appeal is filed challenging decree for
eviction passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as “MRC Act”). Since Second Appeal is
prohibited in view of Section 34(3) of the MRC Act, the learned
28. Judgment.odt
2
Advocate for the appellant makes an oral motion to convert Second
Appeal into a Civil Revision Application. The motion made by the
learned Advocate is accepted. Second Appeal be registered as Civil
Revision Application. The Civil Revision Application is taken up
for hearing.
2. The learned Advocate for the applicant contends that
the suit for eviction is filed on the grounds of arrears of rent,
bonafide need and act of demolition of a wall in the suit property.
The learned Advocate contends that the suit is not maintainable,
since it is filed before a period of 90 days from the date on which
the demand notice, as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the
MRC Act, is served on the revision petitioner/tenant.
3. As regards the bonafide need, the contention of the
learned Advocate is that the need is set up by the
respondent/landlady was that her daughter, who is a doctor, and the
suit property, which compromises a shop block was required to set
up her clinic. The learned Advocate contends that the daughter is
now married and residing at Gadchiroli.
4. With respect to demolition of wall, the contention of
the learned Advocate is that this cannot be a ground for passing a
decree for eviction under the provisions of the MRC Act.
28. Judgment.odt
3
5. It is not in dispute that the daughter of the landlady is
an Ayurvedic doctor. The case set up that the suit property was
required for setting up clinic for landlady daughter is therefore, a
good ground for seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of
bonafide need. Perusal of the judgment and depositions will
demonstrate that the defendant/tenant sought to contend that the
clinic could be set up in another property owned by the landlady.
However, this contention is rejected by the learned Courts on the
ground that the said property residential house of the landlady,
whereas the suit property is a shop situated in the market area. The
finding recorded by the learned Courts with respect to bonafide
need is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
6. As regards the contention that the daughter is now
residing at her matrimonial house at Gadchiroli, this contention
does not appear to have been raised before the learned Trial Court
or even before the learned Appellate Court.
7. As regards comparative hardship, it must be stated that
admittedly the tenant has not looked for alternate premises
throughout the litigation. This Court has consistently taken a view
that if a tenant is unable to establish that, despite looking for
alternate premises the same could not be found issue of comparative
28. Judgment.odt
4
hardship will have to be answered against the tenant. Likewise, no
contention is raised either before the learned trial Court, Appellate
Court and even this Court with respect to partial eviction.
8. It is also not in dispute that the tenant has demolished
a wall in the suit property, which is also a good ground for seeking
eviction under Section 16(a) of the MRC Act read with Section
108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
9. In view of the aforesaid decree for eviction
concurrently passed against the present appellant does not warrant
any interference. Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed
with no order as to costs.
10. In view of the fact that Second Appeal is ordered to be
registered as Civil Revision Application, amount of court fees
refundable to the appellant be refunded in accordance with law.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
28. Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2026
initially filed as SECOND APPEAL NO.68 OF 2026
APPELLANT
(Ori. Defendant)
On R.A.
:- Wasima Ashpak Sayyad
Aged about – 40 years, Occup – Medical
Stores, R/o. – Shivaji Chowk, Bramhapuri,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.
..VERSUS..
:-
Sau. Mayabai W/o Ramuji Meher
RESPONDENT
(Ori. Plaintiff)
Aged about 57 years, Occu. – Household,
R/o Shahu Nagar, Delanwadi, Bramhapuri,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.
On R.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. M.S. Thengre, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 18/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. T he Second Appeal is filed challenging decree for
eviction passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
(hereinafter referred to as “MRC Act”). Since Second Appeal is
prohibited in view of Section 34(3) of the MRC Act, the learned
28. Judgment.odt
2
Advocate for the appellant makes an oral motion to convert Second
Appeal into a Civil Revision Application. The motion made by the
learned Advocate is accepted. Second Appeal be registered as Civil
Revision Application. The Civil Revision Application is taken up
for hearing.
2. The learned Advocate for the applicant contends that
the suit for eviction is filed on the grounds of arrears of rent,
bonafide need and act of demolition of a wall in the suit property.
The learned Advocate contends that the suit is not maintainable,
since it is filed before a period of 90 days from the date on which
the demand notice, as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the
MRC Act, is served on the revision petitioner/tenant.
3. As regards the bonafide need, the contention of the
learned Advocate is that the need is set up by the
respondent/landlady was that her daughter, who is a doctor, and the
suit property, which compromises a shop block was required to set
up her clinic. The learned Advocate contends that the daughter is
now married and residing at Gadchiroli.
4. With respect to demolition of wall, the contention of
the learned Advocate is that this cannot be a ground for passing a
decree for eviction under the provisions of the MRC Act.
28. Judgment.odt
3
5. It is not in dispute that the daughter of the landlady is
an Ayurvedic doctor. The case set up that the suit property was
required for setting up clinic for landlady daughter is therefore, a
good ground for seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of
bonafide need. Perusal of the judgment and depositions will
demonstrate that the defendant/tenant sought to contend that the
clinic could be set up in another property owned by the landlady.
However, this contention is rejected by the learned Courts on the
ground that the said property residential house of the landlady,
whereas the suit property is a shop situated in the market area. The
finding recorded by the learned Courts with respect to bonafide
need is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
6. As regards the contention that the daughter is now
residing at her matrimonial house at Gadchiroli, this contention
does not appear to have been raised before the learned Trial Court
or even before the learned Appellate Court.
7. As regards comparative hardship, it must be stated that
admittedly the tenant has not looked for alternate premises
throughout the litigation. This Court has consistently taken a view
that if a tenant is unable to establish that, despite looking for
alternate premises the same could not be found issue of comparative
28. Judgment.odt
4
hardship will have to be answered against the tenant. Likewise, no
contention is raised either before the learned trial Court, Appellate
Court and even this Court with respect to partial eviction.
8. It is also not in dispute that the tenant has demolished
a wall in the suit property, which is also a good ground for seeking
eviction under Section 16(a) of the MRC Act read with Section
108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
9. In view of the aforesaid decree for eviction
concurrently passed against the present appellant does not warrant
any interference. Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed
with no order as to costs.
10. In view of the fact that Second Appeal is ordered to be
registered as Civil Revision Application, amount of court fees
refundable to the appellant be refunded in accordance with law.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate