Plaintiff bears primary burden of proving tenancy; possession alone cannot establish tenant status without rent receipts or agreements.

The Petitioner (Original Defendant) owns a bungalow in Lonavala. The Respondent (Original Plaintiff) occupied an 8x8 sq. ft. room therein

In 2008, the Respondent filed a suit for declaration of tenancy under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming he paid monthly rent to the Petitioner’s mother

The Petitioner contested this, asserting the Respondent was employed as a gardener and the room was service-related permissive possession. The Petitioner produced nokar-namas (employment contracts) and salary receipts

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the Respondent failed to prove tenancy

However, the District Court (Appellate Court) reversed this decision, declaring the Respondent a tenant because the Petitioner failed to conclusively prove continuous employment via nokar-namas for the entire duration of possession

1. Whether the burden of proof to establish tenancy lies upon the party claiming to be a tenant

2. Whether long-standing or permissive possession of a premises is sufficient to establish a legal tenancy under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act

3. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in shifting the burden of proof onto the landlord to disprove tenancy by proving employment

The Court applied the principle that the burden of proving a tenancy rests strictly on the person claiming the status of a tenant

It relied on Rajaram Hiralal Bhoi v. Chintaman Waman Sathe [2012(2) Mh.L.J. 151] to affirm this burden

Furthermore, the Court applied the principle from Pandurang Dharma Gaikwad v. Mahamudmuya Ahmadsaheb Patil [2013(2) Mh.L.J. 949], which establishes that long-standing or permissive possession does not, by itself, create or prove a tenancy

The High Court found the Appellate Court’s reasoning perverse because it erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the Petitioner. The Respondent failed to produce any rent receipts or a tenancy agreement; conversely, the 116 salary receipts produced were signed by the Respondent, indicating he was a recipient of money (salary) rather than a payer of rent

The High Court noted that the Appellate Court focused on "weaknesses" in the Petitioner's defense—such as the lack of nokar-namas for certain intervals—rather than requiring the Plaintiff to prove his positive case

The Court emphasized that even if the Petitioner failed to prove the respondent was a gardener, the Respondent remained legally obligated to prove he was a tenant, which he failed to do

The Court held that the Appellate Court's inference of tenancy from the "failure" of the employment defense was a legal error

Consequently, the Civil Appeal No. 65/2012 was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the Respondent’s suit was confirmed. The Court concluded that the Appellate Court's decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice by misplacing the legal onus