Bombay High Court
Vilas S/O Damodhar Bhruguwar vs Sou. Vidya Vinayrao Dixit And Others on 16 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9364
3.sa.383.14 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Second Appeal No.383 of 2014
Vilas s/o Damodhar Bhruguwar
vs.
Sou. Vidya Vinayrao Dixit and others
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ms. Tejal Agre h/f Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Nitin Bhisikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
The present appellant is defendant No.2 in Regular Civil
Suit No.26/2001, which was filed by present respondent Nos.1 to 16
for eviction and possession. The suit property was owned by one
Narayanrao Sambashiv Ganguwar, who died issue-less. The
respondents/defendants are the real brothers and sisters of deceased-
Narayanrao.
02. The case of the plaintiffs is that deceased-Narayanrao
during his life time had allowed defendant No.1-Damodar @ Baburao
Gopalrao Bhruguwar to occupy the suit property due to family
relations. Defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1-Damodar. The
premises were let out in order to enable defendant No.2 to utilize the
same as his Office. Defendant No.3 was subsequently added in the suit
under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), since he
is a brother of deceased-Narayanrao. The plaintiffs had issued a notice
for eviction to the defendants in response to which, the defendants
claimed that they were not in occupation of the suit property as
tenants, but pursuant to an agreement of sale entered into by them
with deceased-Narayanrao.
03. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit holding that the
plaintiffs were co-owners of the suit property and that the defendants
were inducted in the suit property as tenants. The learned trial Court
has observed that the defendants had forfeited their character as
tenants by claiming that they were in a possession of suit property
pursuant to an agreement to sale and also because they have
questioned the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid decree for eviction and possession passed by
the learned trial Court, the present appellant preferred appeal, which
was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03/05/2014. The
present second appeal is filed challenging the said concurrent decrees.
04. Ms. Tejal Agre, learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant contends that the suit property is located within the
municipal limits of Gadchiroli town and, therefore, was subject to the
provisions of the erstwhile the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent
Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Order' for
brevity) and now protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Act' for brevity) is
available. She further contends that the plaintiffs have failed to prove
that they were absolute owners of the suit property and as such they
were not entitled to file suit for eviction against the defendants. She
further contends that the learned Courts below ought to have accepted
the case of the defendants that they were in occupation of the suit
property in term of the agreement entered into with deceased-
Narayanrao and further claims that the defendants had become owners
of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
05. As regards the contention with respect to agreement of sale,
it is apparent on the face of record that there is no document with
respect to the alleged agreement of sale. The case appears to be one of
oral agreement. However, the pleadings and evidence are completely
silent with respect to the date and tentative period of the alleged
agreement. There is also no clarity with respect to the terms and
conditions of alleged agreement of sale. The contention that the
defendants were in occupation of the suit property on the basis of
agreement of sale, is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
06. The defendants have taken plea of perfecting title by
adverse possession as well. The defendants have clearly stated that
they were permitted by deceased-Narayanrao to occupy the suit
property. Thus, the entry of defendants in the suit property is
permissive and consequently their possession was also permissive
possession. The defendants also claim to have entered into an
agreement of sale with deceased-Narayanrao, which again implies that
their possession was permissive. It appears that their contention is that
the possession is hostile as against the plaintiffs. In order to
successfully claim ownership on the basis of adverse possession, it was
necessary for the defendants to clearly plead and then prove as to,
since when and how their possession became adverse. The pleadings
and evidence are completely silent in this regard. The starting point on
which the possession became adverse is not mentioned either in the
pleadings or in the evidence. The contention with respect to adverse
possession is liable to be rejected, since the defendants have miserably
failed to prove the same.
07. In the alternate, the defendants claim protection under the
provisions of the erstwhile Rent Control Order and now under the
provisions of the Rent Control Act. The defendants have failed to
prove that they were in occupation of the property as tenants and that
they were paying any rent for occupation of the suit property.
Protection of the erstwhile Rent Control Order and the Rent Control
Act cannot be claimed unless payment of rent is proved. Apart from
this, the defendants have renounced their character of tenant by
claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession and also
claiming to be in possession of the property based on agreement, which
results in forfeiture of tenancy. Protection of Rent Control Act cannot
be claimed by tenant to fortify his tenancy rights.
08. The last contention, that the plaintiffs are not absolute
owners of the suit property and, therefore, suit for possession filed by
them is not maintainable, is also liable to be rejected. The defendants
do not dispute that the plaintiffs are real brothers and sisters of
deceased-Narayanrao. It is also not in dispute that deceased-
Narayanrao has not left behind any Class-I legal heir. It is obvious that
the suit property was inherited by the plaintiffs after demise of
Narayanrao. The contention of the defendants is that all the Class-II
legal heirs have not filed the suit and, therefore, the suit is not
maintainable. It is well settled that even one co-owner can file a suit
for eviction and possession against the tenant or trespasser. The said
proposition is well settled and there cannot be any quarrel with respect
to the same. The status of the plaintiffs as co-owners cannot be
disputed. The said contention is also liable to be rejected.
09. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration. The second appeal is dismissed with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/09/2025 11:07:52
