[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Yeshwant Pandurang Worlikar vs Shankar Mahadev Patil And Ors. on 18 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:13486
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 795/2011
YESHWANT PANDURANG WORLIKAR
(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ..APPLICANTS
VS
SHANKAR MAHADEV PATIL AND ORS ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Ziaul Mustafa i/b. Adv. Milind Vilas Rawal for the applicant.
Adv. A. M. Saraogi for the respondents.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 7 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH 2026.
JUDGMENT :
1) This civil revision application filed u/s. 115 of the Code of the
Civil Procedure by the applicant who is the landlord of the suit
premises, challenges the judgment and decree passed by the
Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court whereby the decree of
eviction passed by the trial Court was set aside. Though the ground of
bonafide requirement was answered in favour of the landlord, only
on the ground of non-joinder of one of the legal heirs of the tenant,
the suit was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes
Court.
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
2) The applicant being landlord of the suit premises filed a suit
for eviction on three grounds viz. (i) bonafide requirement, (ii) sublet
and (iii) arrears of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit premises on
the ground of bonafide requirement and sublet. The Appellate Court
held the ground of subletting against the landlord, however,
answered the ground of bonafide requirement in favour of the
landlord, but on the ground of non-joinder of one of legal heirs of the
tenant by the landlord the decree was refused. Hence, the present
civil revision application by the landlord.
3) Therefore, in the present proceeding, the landlord would have
to cross the hurdle whether it was necessary to the landlord to add
the daughter of the original tenant in the eviction suit.
4) Mr. Mustafa, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-
landlord submitted that law as far as impleadment of heirs of the
deceased tenant is quite settled by the judgments passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and
another1. He further submitted that in the additional written
statement filed by defendant no.3, it is very categorically stated that
it is only defendant no.3 alongwith defendant no.2, who is in
possession of the suit premises. Similarly, in the evidence of
1 (2018) 6 SCC 708
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
defendant no.3, he has again repeated the said fact that it was only
defendant no.2 who was in possession of the suit premises. There is
no mention that the sister of the defendants was ever in possession of
the suit premises, neither it is clarified that what is the name of the
sister of the defendants and her other details whether she is married
and is staying with her husband in her matrimonial house. He further
submitted that the trial Court had decreed the suit which was
accepted by all the defendants except defendant no.3 (Shankar
Mahadev Patil). The appeal was preferred before the Appellate Bench
of the Small Causes Court only by defendant no.3 (Shankar Mahadev
Patil). Therefore the civil revision application requires to be allowed.
5) Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
defendants submits that it is not the plaintiff's case that only the
defendants are residing in the suit premises and the sister of the
defendants is not residing in the suit premises. He further submitted
that the landlord was aware about the details of the sister of the
defendants. Therefore, only on the ground of non-joinder of the
necessary party, the suit has been rightly dismissed by the Appellate
Bench of the Small Causes Court. He submits that judgment referred
by Mr. Mustafa are on the issue of after the death of the tenant for
convenience the rent receipts should be in the name of one of the
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
legal heirs of the original tenant. Therefore, the judgments referred
by the applicant - landlord would have no bearing in the present
proceedings.
6) I have heard counsel for both the sides and with their help, I
have gone through the documents on record.
7) The Supreme Court in the judgment of Suresh Kumar Kohli
(supra), while dealing with the issue of impleadment of the legal
heirs of the deceased tenant as party in the eviction proceeding has
held that any of the legal heirs who is in occupation of the suit
premises, can be impleaded as a party and all of them need not be
impleaded. It further held that the issue about non impleadment of
one of the legal heirs at the stage of execution is nothing but an
attempt to nullify the eviction decree. Paragraph 24 of the said
judgment reads as under:-
24. We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (1989) 3 SCC 77 , the
situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the
tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants is occupation of all
the joint tenants. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all legal heirs of
the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is
sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying
the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the
legal heirs of the deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in
occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition.
An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the
joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as
joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legat heirs.
Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.
(Emphasis supplied)
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
8) Therefore, the Supreme Court has categorically held that it is
not necessary that in every proceeding the landlord will be aware
about the names of all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant.
9) In the present proceeding, the defendants could have while
raising issue about non impleadment of the sister of the defendants
as a party in the proceeding, in its written statement, put on record
the details of said sister (a) whether she is residing in suit premises
and (b) whether she is married and if married, when did she leave
the suit premises. None of these details have been given by the
defendants.
10) The ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Suresh
Kumar Kohli (supra), is squarely applicable to the present
proceeding. Therefore, the landlord has crossed over the hurdle, that
being non impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as
party defendant. So also, the fact remains that it is the defendants
themselves in their written statement and in evidence have stated
that only defendant no.2 is in occupation of the suit premises.
Paragraph 2 of the additional written statement reads as under:-
2. With reference to the additional paragraph 2-A of the amended plaint
the Defendant No.3 further submits that the Defendant No.1 is not
residing in the suit premises since about the year 1964. The original
Defendant No.2 was staying in the suit premises alongwith the Plaintiff till
his death. During the life time of the Defendant No.2 he alone was staying
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
alongwith the Defendant No.3 and the Defendants No. 2 (a) to 2 (c) were
not residing in the suit premises and they separated from the original
Defendant No.2 in or about the year 1965 and started staying separately
somewhere else. Even the Defendants No.2 (a) to 2 (c) were not
personally served at the suit premises and only the notice of the Hon'ble
Court was pasted on the door of the suit premises by the bailiff of this
Hon'ble Court. The Defendant No.3 further submits that the Plaintiff is
also staying in the same locality viz. Worli Koliwada and he was very much
aware of the death of the original Defendant No.2 in or about the year
1983. Inspite of the said knowledge, the Plaintiff did not take any steps to
bring the Defendants No.2 (a) to 2 (c) on record. The Plaintiff is also very
much aware of the fact that the Defendants No.2 (a) to 2 (c) are not
staying in the suit premises. The Defendant No.3 therefore, denies that on
the death of original Defendant No.2 the cause of action in present suit
survives as alleged and further denies that the alleged cause is available to
the Plaintiff as against the Defendants No.2 (a) to 2 (c) The Defendant
No.3 further denies that the tenancy in respect of the suit premises has
been terminated as alleged by the Plaintiff.
11) Similarly, in the cross-examination of defendant no.3 (Shankar
Mahadev Patil), has categorically stated that "defendant no.1 left the
suit premises in 1965. At present, he is residing in another premises
in Worli Koliwada. The defendant no.2 expired in the suit premises in
1983. Prior to his death, he alone was residing in the suit premises.
At the time of death of defendant no.2, his wife and children were
residing at parental house of the wife of the defendant no.2 since
1963.
12) Hence, in my view, considering the pleadings and evidence on
record, non-joinder of sister, if any, of the defendants will not be fatal
to the suit premises.
13) As regards the three grounds for eviction, learned counsel for
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
the applicant - landlord, on instructions, has given away the ground
of arrears of rent as there was no much material available with him
and as the trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground of arrears
of rent and the landlord having not file any cross objections or cross
appeal before the Appellate Bench.
14) As regards the ground of bonafide requirement, in the plaint, it
is the case of the landlord that there are six members in the family of
landlord. The landlord himself is a blind person, and they all are
staying in premises nearby which is a tenanted premises admeasuring
6 ft. x 8 ft. which totals to 48 sq.fts. In the evidence on behalf of the
landlord again the said fact has been categorically stated. The
defendants have admitted that the present suit premises is 570 sq.ft.
However, they have disputed that the plaintiff is residing in a
premises admeasuring 48 sq.ft. According to them, the plaintiff is
residing in the area of 150 sq.ft. Since the landlord is blind, on behalf
of the landlord he examined his wife as PW-1. So also, he examined
one more witness who was examined for the purpose of ground of
eviction of subletting.
15) The Supreme Court in the judgment of Meenal Eknath
Kshirsagar (Mrs) versus Traders & Agencies and another 2, there are
2 (1996) 5 SCC 344
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
identical facts where the landlords were residing in the tenanted
premises, and she had sought eviction of the tenant in the suit
premises. The Supreme Court while setting aside the findings of the
Bombay High Court and of the Appellate Court of the Small Causes,
decreed the suit of the landlord and confirmed the findings given by
the trial Court. Paragraph No.13 reads as under:-
13. In Prativa Devi Vs. T. V. Krishnan 3, to which our attention has been
drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has pointed out
the correct test which has to be applied in finding out whether the
requirement of the landlord is bona fide or not. It has held that:
"The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a
complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to
the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for
him a residential standard of their own.
..... There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial
enjoyment of his property."
16) This judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. In the evidence itself the defendants have stated that it is only
defendant no.2 who is in occupation of the suit premises which is
admeasuring 570 sq.ft., the plaintiff's family consists of six members
when they have filed the suit. Nothing material were brought on
record on behalf of the defendants to show that there are other
premises available with the landlord where their need can be
satisfied. In an application being Interim Notice No. 134/1994 filed
before the trial Court by the plaintiff to bring on record the legal
3 (1996) 5 SCC 353
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
heirs of the deceased defendant no.2, the defendant no.3 (Shankar
Mahadev Patil) filed his reply which is part of the compilation
produced before this Court at page 157. In paragraph 3, it has been
stated that "defendant no.1 is not residing in the suit premises since
about 1964. Defendant no.2 till his death was staying in the suit
premises. The plaintiff is staying in the same locality was very much
aware of the death of defendant no.2 which happened in or about
1983. Even then after much delay the application to bring on record
the legal heirs of defendant no.2 has been preferred. According to
me, this is a clear admission on the part of the defendants that apart
from defendant no.1 earlier and thereafter, defendant no.2, nobody
resided in the suit premises. According to me, the findings of the trial
Court as regards the bonafide requirement is concerned, needs to be
confirmed which was also confirmed by the Appellate Court.
17) Hence, the suit is decreed for eviction on the ground of
bonafide requirement.
18) There is one more ground which was sought i.e. subletting
which was answered in favour of the landlord. However, the
Appellate Court reversed the same. Since, I have already passed the
decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, hence I am
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
not dealing with the ground of subletting, however, I would like to
mention that as far as subletting is concerned, the plaintiff has rightly
made submissions in the plaint which is required in law in paragraph
3 that the defendants have subdivided the suit premises into two
parts, upper part has been sublet unauthorizedly and the defendants
are recovering rent from the sub-tenant and profiteering therewith
since the defendant is receiving a rent of Rs.125/- per month and
rent of the suit premises which the defendants are supposed to pay to
the plaintiff is only Rs.15 per month. The said fact has been repeated
by the plaintiff in her evidence, so also, the sub-tenant has mentioned
the said fact in his evidence. In fact, an agreement entered into
between the defendant and sub-tenant has been brought on record.
Much has been said about the signatures on the said document as
regards the comparison of the signatures of the defendant on the said
document and on the vakalatnama.
19) Mr. Saraogi also raised an issue about identification of the
premises being not prepared.
20) I have seen paragraph 1 of the plaint which refers to House
no.70, situated near Shankar Temple, Worli Koliwada, Worli,Mumbai
400 025. The said description is also repeated in prayer clause (a) of
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
the plaint. Therefore, according to me, the description of the suit
premises is in a proper format and the decree can be accordingly
executed.
21) In view of the fact that I have already held that there is an
eviction decree passed by both the Courts on bonafide requirement
the same is confirmed.
22) The civil revision application, hence, stands allowed.
23) In view of the same, the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court on 10/2/1998 in R.A.E. Suit No.862/1979
stands confirmed.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
24) At this stage, Mr. Saraogi, learned advocate appearing for the
respondents seeks time of six months to vacate the suit premises.
25) Mr. Milind Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants has opposed the request made by Mr. Saraogi.
26) The respondents are granted six months time from today to
vacate the suit premises subject to they filing an usual undertaking of
all the adult members of the respondents' family also stating therein
that they are the only persons who are in possession of the suit
Diksha Rane CRA 795 2011-FINAL.doc
premises, and they will not create any third party rights and would
not part with possession, and they will vacate the suit premises
within a period of six months from today.
27) Stay to the execution of this judgment is granted subject to
undertakings be filed within a period of one week from today.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/03/2026 19:46:57
