BHASKAR JAGANNATH GADEKAR v. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ALIAS RENT CONTROLLER AND OTHERS
Dismissal of Writ Petition for Abuse of Process - Execution of Eviction Decree Cannot be Stalled by Strangers Using Fraudulent Pleadings and Suppressing Material Facts.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13547
Decision Date: 30-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 227; Hyderabad Rent Control Act; Law of Equity and Fairness; Doctrine of Clean Hands; Suppression of Material Facts (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)
- Facts: The case involves a decades-long struggle to execute an eviction decree. The subject property, owned by CIDCO and leased to the original owner (whose daughter is Respondent No. 3), was tenanted to Respondent No. 4 in 1992. After protracted litigation, the High Court ordered eviction in 2011. During execution proceedings before the Rent Control Officer (RCO), the Petitioner, a stranger to the original suit, filed multiple objections. He claimed to have entered possession based on an oral assurance from the tenant (Respondent No. 4) that the property would be sold to him. The Petitioner filed several Writ Petitions and an appeal before the District Court to stall the execution. Crucially, the Petitioner suppressed the fact that he had withdrawn his Rent Appeal, instead falsely pleading before the RCO and the High Court that the appeal was still pending to argue that the RCO's proceedings were non-maintainable.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Rent Control Officer, which had rejected his objections to the execution of the possession warrant.
- Issue: Whether the Petitioner, a stranger to the eviction decree claiming possession through an alleged oral agreement with a tenant, can stall the execution of an eviction decree, especially when the Petitioner has approached the Court with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts?
- Holding: No. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Petitioner had no legal right to the property and had abused the process of law through fraudulent pleadings and suppression of facts.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Petitioner was neither a tenant nor a sub-tenant and had no registered instrument to justify his possession. An oral agreement by a tenant to sell leasehold property has no legal sanctity and cannot bind the owner or CIDCO. Furthermore, the Court applied the maxim "Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria", stating that the Petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong. By falsely claiming his Rent Appeal was pending while it was actually withdrawn, the Petitioner failed the "clean hands" doctrine required for equitable relief. Invoking the maxim "Executio Est Finis Et Fructus Legis", the Court emphasized that a decree on paper is useless unless executed, and directed the immediate execution of the possession warrant with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the Petitioner.
🔒 For Members Only