Maaharashtra State Electlricity ... vs Amarlal Bhagwandas Lalwani
2025 Latest Caselaw 1515 Bom

Bombay High Court

Maaharashtra State Electlricity ... vs Amarlal Bhagwandas Lalwani on 6 August, 2025

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2025:BHC-AS:33903                                                           21-SA-411-2008.DOC




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       SECOND APPEAL NO.411 OF 2008


                    Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
                    Company Ltd.
                    Through its Executive Engineer, O & M Division
                    I, Ulhasnagar, District: Thane                 ...Appellant
                           Versus
                    Amarlal Bhagwandas Lalwani                     ...Respondent


                    Mr. Sumeet Palsuledesai i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., for the Appellant.
                    Mr. Vinod N. Tayade a/w. Mr. Aditya V. Tayade, for the Respondent.


                                               CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                                               DATED :     6th AUGUST 2025
                    PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Palsuledesai, learned Counsel appearing for the

Appellant and Mr. Tayade, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent.

2. A learned Single Judge has admitted this Second Appeal by

order dated 25th March 2008 on the following substantial questions

of law:

(a) Whether the Courts below have completely glossed

over the fact that the appellant is a Government

Page 1 Sonali

21-SA-411-2008.DOC

Company which may not covered by the exception /

exemption carved out under Section 3(1)(b) of the

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and, therefore,

the protection of the said Act was very much available

to the Appellant?

(b) Whether the Courts below have completely ignored

the legal effect of the fact that the paid up share

capital of the appellant was not Rs.1 crore or more

and, therefore, exception provided under the Section

3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

was not applicable to the appellant?

(c) Whether the Courts below could have passed a decree

against the appellant on the ground that the appellant

was not protected under the Maharashtra Rent

Control Act, 1999?

3. Before considering the substantial questions of law, it is

noticed that on behalf of the Plaintiff, none has stepped into the

Page 2 Sonali

21-SA-411-2008.DOC

witness-box to adduce the oral evidence. The learned Trial Court

has framed the following issues:

  Sr.                  ISSUES                          FINDINGS
  No.
  1] Doe     plaintiff    prove    that the      In the affirmative.

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not applicable to suit premises.

2] Does plaintiff prove that suit is In the affirmative. governed under the provisions of TP Act, 1908.

3] Is notice legal and valid In the affirmative. 4] What is due to the plaintiff. In the affirmative. 5] Whether plaintiff is entitled to In the affirmative. possession.

6] What order and decree As per final order.

4. A learned Single Judge while framing the substantial

question of law has framed the substantial question of law to the

effect that whether the learned Trial Court and the learned

Appellate Court have completely ignored the legal effect of the fact

that the paid up share capital of the appellant was not Rs.1 crore

or more and, therefore, exception provided under the Section 3(1)

(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was not applicable

to the Appellant.

Page 3 Sonali

21-SA-411-2008.DOC

5. However, perusal of the record shows that as the Plaintiff

has not examined any witness to prove his case, the said

jurisdictional fact for filing the suit under the provisions of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as according to the Plaintiff, the

Defendant has not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control

Act, 1999 has not been established by leading cogent evidence.

6. In view of this position, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent, on instructions of the Respondent, who is personally

present in Court submitted that the Judgments and Decrees of the

learned Trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court be quashed

and set aside and suit be remanded to the learned Trial Court by

giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, on

instructions, states that the Appellant has no objection for the

same.

8. Accordingly, by consent of the parties, the Judgment and

Decree dated 13th April 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge

Junior Division, Ulhasnagar in Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 2004 as

Page 4 Sonali

21-SA-411-2008.DOC

confirmed by the learned District Judge at Kalyan by the Judgment

and Decree dated 18th January 2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.50

of 2007 are quashed and set aside and the said Regular Civil Suit

No.60 of 2004 is restored to the file of learned Civil Judge Junior

Division, Ulhasnagar.

9. Both the parties to appear before the concerned learned Civil

Judge Junior Division, Ulhasnagar on 15th September 2025. The

learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit by giving opportunity to

both the parties to lead evidence.

10. The Second Appeal is disposed of in above terms with no

order as to costs.

11. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits

and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

                                               [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

            Digitally
            signed by
            SONALI
SONALI      MILIND
MILIND      PATIL
PATIL       Date:
            2025.08.08
            10:13:26
            +0530



                                    Page 5
   Sonali