AJITNATH TATYASAHEB SHETTI AND ANR v. M/S GOVINDRAM SHOBHARAM AND COMPANY THR. ITS PARTNER RAJESH K. SHAH
Survival of Tenancy Rights and Landlord’s Bona Fide Requirement Post-Demolition of Dilapidated Suit Premises during Pendency of Litigation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:1279
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Rent Control Law - Bona Fide Requirement; Rent Control Law - Survival of Tenancy after Demolition
- Facts: The Revision Applicant (landlord) filed an eviction suit against the Respondent (tenant) regarding a ground-floor godown in Sangli. Eviction was sought under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on grounds of bona fide requirement for a hardware or hotel business following the landlord's retirement, and non-user for more than six months. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Court, the municipal corporation issued a notice for the old, dilapidated structure, resulting in the demolition of the suit premises. The tenant argued that the demolition extinguished the subject matter of the tenancy and that the landlord's requirement was no longer genuine as the original structure intended for repair was gone.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court originally decreed the suit in favor of the landlord. On appeal, the District Court reversed this decision, dismissing the suit on the grounds that the demolition rendered the bona fide requirement non-existent and provided a reasonable cause for the tenant's non-user. The landlord then filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.
- Issue: Does the demolition of a tenanted building during litigation extinguish the tenancy rights or annul the landlord's bona fide requirement?
- Holding: No, the tenancy rights and the landlord's grounds for eviction survive the demolition of the superstructure.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in "Shaha Ratansi Khimji", which held that a tenancy comprises both the building and the land; thus, the destruction of the building alone does not determine the tenancy if the land continues to exist. Further, following the principle in "Gaya Prasad", the Court held that bona fide requirement must be judged as of the date of the suit's institution. Subsequent developments, such as the demolition of a dilapidated building, do not "eclipse" the landlord's need. The Court found the tenant's claim of "reasonable cause" for non-user due to dilapidation to be mala fide, noting the tenant had not sought court permission for repairs and had other available premises which they had instead licensed to a bank. The Appellate Court's reversal was deemed a "perverse appreciation" of evidence.
🔒 For Members Only