Bombay High Court
Anandji Padamshi Shah Deleted Since ... vs Gorakh Liladhar Patil And Anr on 3 September, 2025
Author: N. J. Jamadar
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2025:BHC-AS:37198
52-WP6636-2024.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6636 OF 2024
Anandji Padamshi Shah Deleted Since Decd
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Gorakh Liladhar Patil & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Jaydeep Deo, a/w Onkar Gawade, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Harvinder Toor, for Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(f).
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2025
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order
dated 21st February, 2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of the
Court of Small Causes in Misc. Appeal No.360 of 2015, whereby
the appeal preferred by the petitioners against an order dated
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI 14th July, 2015 passed by the Trial Court on an application for
temporary injunction (Exhibit-41) came to be dismissed by
affirming the order passed by the Trial Court.
3. The petitioners instituted the suit seeking a declaration
that the petitioners were lawful tenants in respect of the suit
premises consisting of a shop admeasuring 281 sq. ft., a tin
52-WP6636-2024.DOC
shed godown admeasuring 321 sq. ft. and open space
admeasuring 365 sq. ft. abutting thereto and upto the Street, at
Prabhadevi Road, Dadar, Mumbai ("the suit premises").
4. Defendant No.1 landlord controverted the claim of the
petitioners that, they were the tenants in respect of the tin shed
godown and the open space. The petitioners were stated to be
tenant in respect of the shop premises admeasuring 481 sq. ft.
only.
5. In the said suit, the petitioners had filed an application
for temporary injunction (Exhibit-9). Initially by an order dated
15th November, 2013 status quo was ordered to be maintained.
It is the claim of the petitioners that on 25 th November, 2013 the
petitioners were illegally dispossessed of the tin shed godown
and appurtenant open space. Therefore, the petitioners filed
another application (Exhibit-41) seeking interim injunction in
myriad forms with regard to the tin shed godown and
appurtenant land.
6. The Trial Court found that, the petitioners were not in
possession of the tin shed godown and the open space. The
Trial Court took it into account the report of the Court
Commissioner, who had visited the suit premises on 27 th
November, 2013, a couple of days after the petitioners were
52-WP6636-2024.DOC
allegedly dispossessed in pursuance of a notice issued by the
Bombay Municipal Corporation under Section 351A of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
7. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Bench. By the impugned order, the appeal also came to be
dismissed.
8. Mr. Deo, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that, the petitioners were in possession of the tin
shed godown and the only access to the said tin shed was
through the open space. The petitioners were illegally
dispossessed of the godown during pending of the suit by the
defendants in a high handed manner and in collusion with the
officers of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the
courts below were in error in not granting injunctive reliefs to
the petitioners.
9. Mt. Toor, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2(a) to
2(f), supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the
courts below have recorded categorical findings that the
petitioners were not in possession of the tin shed godown and
the open space. Therefore, in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction no interference is warranted with such concurrent
finding of facts.
52-WP6636-2024.DOC
10. I have perused the material on record. From the bare
perusal of the very prayers in the application (Exhibit-41), it
becomes abundantly clear that, the petitioners had not been in
the possession of the tin shed godown and the open space.
Though the reliefs claimed therein are couched as prohibitory
reliefs, yet, in essence, the reliefs partake the character of
mandatory injunction. The Appellate Court has, in terms,
recorded that, the rent receipt and the certificate issued under
the Shops and Establishments Act, refers to only the shop
premises; which is indisputably in the possession of the
petitioners. No other material was placed on the record of the
Court to demonstrate that, the petitioners had not been in
possession of the tin shed godown and open space.
11. The submission of Mr. Deo that, the petitioners were
illegally dispossessed while the status quo was in operation does
not carry the matter any further. The trial Court has rightly
recorded that what was the status quo as of the date of the said
order was then not ascertained. Therefore, the order of status
quo cannot be construed as establishing the fact that the
petitioners were in the possession of the tin shed godown and
the open space.
52-WP6636-2024.DOC
12. In the face of the material on record, the prima facie
findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the
Appellate Court appear to be justified. In exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction this Court is not expected to reappraise
the material on record and take a different view on facts. Since
the Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the
plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the tin shed
godown and the appurtenant open space, the exercise of
discretion by the courts below cannot be faulted at. Resultantly,
the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
13. The petition stands dismissed.
14. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are confined
to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the
impugned order and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by
any of the observations made in this order and the order
impugned in this petition, while finally adjudicating the suit.
15. All contentions of all the parties are kept open for
consideration at the time of the final adjudication of the suit.
16. The trial court is requested to make an endeavour to
decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
