Inductees in structures on leased open land are mere licensees and must vacate upon lease termination.

The Applicants (landowners) leased an open plot in Bandra to Moogatlal Bhat via three successive indentures (1934, 1949, and 1959).

The 1959 Indenture was executed after Moogatlal’s death; while 15 heirs surrendered previous rights, the new lease was granted only to three joint tenants (Parvatishankar, Madhusudan, and Vijaykumar) for 20 years.

The lease required the tenants to remove all structures and return vacant land upon expiry.

Moogatlal had constructed three "Galas" (shops) and inducted Respondent Nos. 1–6 (obstructionists) as occupants.

After the lease expired in 1979, the tenants remained as protected tenants until the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 removed protection for open land.

The Applicants filed an ejectment suit (T.E. R. Suit No. 66 of 2002).

Vijaykumar was the last surviving tenant, and his heirs (Defendants 8–11) entered into a consent decree in 2006 to surrender possession.

During execution, Respondent Nos. 1–6 obstructed, claiming independent sub-tenancy rights.

The Trial Court allowed the Applicants' Obstructionist Notice, but the Appellate Bench reversed it, holding the decree was "incomplete" as only some heirs surrendered and finding the obstructionists were lawful sub-tenants.

The court applied Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the CPC, which mandate that the Executing Court adjudicate all questions of right, title, or interest relevant to an obstructionist notice.

It relied on the "Doctrine of Dual Ownership," distinguishing ownership of land from ownership of structures built by a lessee.

The court followed Jamnadas Dharamdas v. Dr. J. Joseph Farreira (1980) 3 SCC 569, which held that a landlord of open land is entitled to vacant possession without structures upon lease termination.

It further applied Sanjay Ramchandra Parab v. Ashok D. Bhuta (CRA 409/2023), establishing that third parties inducted by a lessee into structures on leased land are mere licensees vis-à-vis the landowner and do not enjoy protection under the Rent Act once the head-lease is terminated.

The High Court found the Appellate Bench’s judgment "perverse" and based on a fundamental misreading of the 1959 Indenture.

The Appellate Bench erroneously assumed 15 joint tenants existed; however, the deed clearly stated that 12 heirs surrendered rights, leaving only three joint tenants, with Vijaykumar being the last survivor.

Thus, the consent decree signed by Vijaykumar’s heirs was valid and complete.

On the issue of independent rights, the court noted there was no privity of contract between the landowners and the obstructionists.

Applying the dual ownership principle, the court held that since the lease was for open land with a specific covenant to remove structures, the obstructionists (inducted by the lessee) were merely licensees of the lessee.

Their right to occupy the structures was co-terminus with the lessee’s right to the land.

Consequently, the obstructionists could not claim protection under Sections 15 or 15A of the Bombay Rent Act because they were not sub-tenants of the "premises" (the land) let by the owner.

The court held that the consent decree was validly passed against the last surviving tenants and was fully executable.

It directed the removal of Respondent Nos. 1–6 (obstructionists) from Gala Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and ordered them to handover vacant possession of the suit plot to the Applicants.

A request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.