CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2013

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11734 OF 2025

1.   Mishrilal Chhagganlalji Dhing ]

2.   Mahendra Chagganlalji Dhing ]

      (Deleted since deceased) ]

2a) Teji Bai Mahendra Dhing ]

2b) Sunil Mahendra Dhing ]

2c) Nilesh Mahendra Dhing ]

2d) Ankit Mahendra Dhing ]

      Shop No.1, Manohar Niwas, ]

      Carter Road No.9, Borivli (East), ]

      Mumbai – 400066. ] … Revision Applicants

Versus

1. Mrs. Manohardevi Naharmal Mehta]

    (Deleted) ]

2. M/s. Sitaram Enterprises ]

    A firm registered under the Indian ]

    Partnership Act, 1932,  ]

    carrying on business  ]

    At Manohar Niwas,  ]

    9

th

 Kasturba Road, Borivali (East), ]

    Mumbai-400 066 ] ...Respondents 

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2023

IN

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2013

M/s. Sitaram Enterprises … Applicant

In the matter between:

Mishrilal Chhagganlalji Dhing … Revision Applicants

Vs

Mrs. Manohardevi Naharmal Mehta & Anr. … Respondents

Husen 1 

HUSENBASHA

RAHAMAN

NADAF

Digitally signed

by

HUSENBASHA

RAHAMAN

NADAF

Date:

2026.05.04

18:28:23 +0530

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

***

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Mr. S.H. Singh & Ms.

Tanaya Patankar, Advocates for the Revision Applicants.

Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman i/b. Mr. Amey C. Sawant for the Respondent

and for the Applicant in IA/344/2023.

***

        CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE,  J.

       RESERVED ON : 19

th 

DECEMBER, 2025

PRONOUNCED ON  : 4

th

 MAY, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Civil

Procedure   Code,   1908   (‘CPC’   for   short)   is   filed   challenging   the

judgment and order dated 16.04.2013 passed in A-1 Appeal No. 225

of 2010 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bandra,

Mumbai. By the said impugned order, the appeal filed by the Revision

Applicants, is dismissed and judgment and decree of eviction dated

16.08.2010 passed in R.A.E. Suit No.245/640 of 1995 filed by the

Respondent is confirmed.

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition, are as under:

2.1.  Proceedings arise out of provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel

and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’, for

short).

2.2. Respondent   No.1   is   original   Plaintiff-landlady   and   the

Applicants are Defendant No.1 and legal heirs of Defendant No.2 -

Tenants.

2.3. Respondent   No.1   filed   the   said   suit   for   recovery   of   the

Husen 2 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

possession of the suit premises i.e. Shop No. 1, Manohar Niwas,

Carter Road No. 9, Borivli (East), Mumbai – 400 066.

2.4. In 1995, the Respondent filed the said suit contending  

inter

alia

 that she is the landlady of building known as ‘Manohar Niwas’

under a family arrangement dated 17.12.1994. That suit premises

was let out   to the Defendants for the purpose of business cum

residence.   That   front   portion   of   suit   premises   was   used   by   the

Defendants   for   business   purpose   and   rear   portion   was   used   for

residential purpose. In the front portion, the Defendants carried out

business of jewelry in the name and style of ‘Mangal Jewellers’. That

monthly rent of suit premises was Rs.95.63. That without permission

of the landlady, the Defendants have constructed a loft of permanent

nature inside the suit premises admeasuring 10 X 20 feet and has

unauthorizedly extended the said shop by 4 feet in 1994. That the

Defendants have committed acts contrary to provisions of clause

108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’, for short).

That the Defendants have started using suit premises exclusively for

business   purpose  and   shifted   residence   to   Dahisar   (East).   That

Defendant No. 2 has ceased to occupy the suit premises and shifted

somewhere else and not using the suit premises for the purpose for

which it is let out, without reasonable cause, continuously more than

6 months prior to filing of the suit. That Municipal Corporation has

demolished the unauthorized extension of 4 feet on 15.02.1995.

However, the Defendants attempted to reconstruct said unauthorized

construction.

2.5. The plaint was amended in the year 2004 by adding paragraph

Husen 3 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

No. 4-A contending inter alia that in or about beginning of October

2000, The Defendants have again extended front side of the premises

by 6 feet unauthorizedly and have constructed Otla admeasuring 6 X

10 feet and has also constructed unauthorized wall of 3 feet height

on the rear side of the suit premises. That complaint was made to the

Municipal Corporation. That by Advocate's notice dated 20.02.1995,

the tenancy has been terminated, calling upon the Defendants to

vacate   and   handover   suit   premises.   However,   suit   notice   is   not

complied. Hence, the suit is filed for eviction of Defendants under

sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act.

2.6. During pendency of the suit, the suit premises was conveyed in

favor of Respondent No.2-Partnership firm and necessary amendment

was carried out impleading Respondent No.2.

2.7. The Defendants filed written statement contending inter alia as

under. That suit should be dismissed for non joinder of necessary

party. That the Plaintiffs had filed Suit No. 3931 of 1995 in the City

Civil Court, Mumbai, where the Plaintiff claimed joint ownership of

the   suit   premises.   That   family   arrangement   is   executed   on

17.12.1994, while Power of Attorney is executed in August 1993

when the Plaintiff had no right in law as a landlady. That the suit is

filed by the Constituted Attorney. That Defendant No. 1 is Joint

Secretary of the Tenants’ Association. That Plaintiff  with ulterior

motive has filed the said suit. That suit premises is in the same

condition as it was let out originally. That no notice under Section

351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (as it then was) has

been issued. That portion of the wall on the western side of the

Husen 4 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

premises was demolished using influence with corporation officials.

That Defendants have filed L.C. Suit No. 3214 of 1995. That one

Chandmal Lodha was original landlord whose wife was Bhuridevi

who had no issues from the marriage and present Plaintiff No. 1

Manohardevi is daughter of Bhuridevi's sister. That Plaintiff No. 1 is

also having a sister by name Suryadevi who is residing at Palghar and

therefore family settlement if at all arrived at has no legal force. That

the family arrangement is not registered. That suit building is not

transferred in the name of Plaintiff. Thus, title of the Plaintiff was

denied.   The   allegations   in   respect   of   change   of   user,   non-user,

committing waste and damage to the suit premises are denied. That

derivative title of Plaintiff is defective. That there is no landlord -

tenant relationship. That R.A.D. Suit No. 1012 of 1995 filed by

Defendants with other 5 tenants for declaration of relationship is

pending. That Constituted Attorney of Plaintiff who is alleged partner

of Plaintiff No. 2-firm has no authority to file the suit.

2.8. The learned Trial Judge framed various issues holding that the

grounds   of   erection   of   permanent   structure   and   defendants

committing acts contrary to Section 108(o) of the TP Act are proved.

Learned Trial Court held that suit is maintainable and the Court has

jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Trial Court held that the ground

of change of user and non-user without reasonable cause are not

proved.   That   ultimately   suit   came   to   be   decreed   directing   the

Defendants  to  hand over  vacant  and  peaceful  possession  of  suit

premises to the landlord. 

2.9. The Defendants filed the said appeal. The Appellate Bench held

Husen 5 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

that   the   Court   has   jurisdiction   to   try   the   suit.   That   the   suit  is

maintainable. That ground of erection of permanent structure and

acts contrary to provisions of  Section 108(o) of the TP Act are

proved. The Appellant Bench also held that the grounds of change of

user and non-user are not proved. Thus, concurring with the finding

of the learned Trial Court about erection of permanent structure and

acts contrary to section 108(o) of TP Act, as provided under Section

13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rent Act, the appeal came to be

dismissed there by confirming the decree of eviction. 

2.10. On 21.08.2013, Revision Application was admitted and the

impugned degree of eviction was stayed and the Applicants were

directed not to create third party interest. During pendency  of the

civil revision application, Applicant No.2 expired and his legal heirs

are brought on record.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned   Counsel   Mr.  Kanade,   appearing   for  the  Applicants

submitted that when the title/ownership of the Plaintiff-Manohardevi

is challenged in the beginning, as to how she derived title in 1995

from   Bhuridevi   who   died   in   2002,   it   was   incumbent   upon

Manohardevi to prove how she has become landlady or co-owner.

That in the cross-examination, witness of the landlord has admitted

that Lodha and Mehta families are different and there is no document

between Bhuridevi and Manohardevi. That suit property belonged to

Chandmal   Lodha   and   Bhuridevi   who   were   issue-less   and   when

Bhuridevi died in 2002,   how Manohardevi could file suit in 1995

Husen 6 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

claiming ownership on the basis of family arrangement with plaint

signed   by   her   son   Girish   Mehta   as   Constituted   Attorney?   That

Manohardevi had no occasion to file a suit in 1995. That neither

family arrangement of 1994 nor power of attorney in favour of Girish

Mehta has been produced in evidence. How Manohardevi became

owner is the question. That the legal position about ‘derivative title’

of the Plaintiff is not properly considered by the Courts below. That if

Manohardevi   was   owner   in   1995,   there   was   no   reason   for

conveyance to be executed in 2001 by Bhuridevi alone. That alleged

addition and alteration in the suit premises is not proved. That suits

in respect of alleged illegal structure against Municipal Corporation

or challenging the notice issued by Municipal Corporation (L.C. Suit

No.3214 of 1995, Suit No.1663 of 2001 and C.C. No. 562 of 2003)

are pending in first appeals. That entries in the property cards cannot

be taken as conclusive proof of transfer of ownership. He relied on

the judgment of Vinay Eknath Lad Vs. Chiu Mao Chen (2019) 20 SCC

182 in support of his case that derivative title of the landlord can be

challenged by the tenant. 

4. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Pattabiraman,   appearing   for   the

Respondent-landlord submitted as under. That the argument about

derivative title has no merit because the Respondent-landlord has

sufficiently proved status as landlady in the form of property cards

and registered conveyance deed dated 05.11.2001 (Exhibit-53) which

records that the Plaintiff-Manohardevi was granted leasehold rights

by Bhuridevi. That the Applicants are not disputing that Chandmal

Lodha & Bhuridevi were the landlords and therefore argument of

Husen 7 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

derivative title must fail. That in a declaratory suit filed by Applicants

(R.A.D No. 1012 of 1995) seeking declaration of tenancy raising

similar challenge of derivative title Manohardevi (who was Defendant

No. 2 therein) was raised and said suit has been dismissed. That the

Applicants are estopped from raising alleged defense of derivative

title by virtue of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because

the Applicant tenant, in the present case, has attorned to the Plaintiff-

Manohardevi. That evidence on record is considered by the Courts

below in detail including the manner in which tenant's witness has

avoided to answer the suggestions about paying rent to Manohardevi.

That there is correspondence on record indicating that the Applicants

were paying rent to Manohardevi and therefore in view of proved

attornment, the argument of derivative title must fail. That both the

Courts below have concurrently held on appreciation of evidence that

the   grounds   of   illegal   permanent   structure   and   acts   contrary   to

section 108(o) of TP Act are concurrently held in favour of landlady

and therefore no interference is required in the revisional jurisdiction.

That   the   Applicants   have   received   notices   from   Municipal

Corporation in 1995 as well as in 2000 with regard to unauthorized

construction which were challenged by filing suits and admittedly the

suits   are   dismissed.   That   the   fact   of   Municipal   Corporation

demolishing the unauthorized construction has been admitted by

tenant’s witness. That the judgment of Vinay Eknath Lad (Supra) is

clearly distinguishable. He relied on following judgments in support

of his case. 

i. Boorugu Mahadev and Sons and Anr. Vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao and

Husen 8 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

Ors.(2016) 3 SCC 343. 

ii. Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs. W. Newman and Company Limited

(2018) 6 SCC 744.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the

record.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that in an eviction suit

filed by landlord against a tenant, under rent laws, the issue of title

over tenanted premises raised, the landlord is not expected to prove

his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit and therefore

the burden of proving ownership in an eviction suit is not the same

like title suit. Also, tenant’s right to challenge derivative title of

landlord’s assignee is subject to caveat of ‘attornment’. This has been

clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Boorugu Mahadev

(Supra) as under: 

“18. It is also now a settled principle of law that the

concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation

governed by rent control laws has to be distinguished from

the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term,

the import whereof depends on the context in which it is

used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to

be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as

distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to

evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use

the premises for himself. What may su�ce and hold good

Husen 9 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably

may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim

for ownership in a title suit. (Vide Sheela v. Firm Prahlad

Rai Prem Prakash.)”

7. The same position is reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Apollo Zipper India Limited (Supra), as under:

“40. It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court

that in an eviction suit �led by the landlord against the

tenant under the rent laws, when the issue of title over the

tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to

prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title

suit.

41. In other words, the burden of proving the ownership in

an eviction suit is not the same like a title suit. (See Sheela

v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, para 10 at SCC p. 383

and also Boorugu Mahadev & Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao,

para 18 at SCC p. 349.)

42. Similarly, the law relating to derivative title to the

landlord and when the tenant challenges it during

subsistence of his tenancy in relation to the demised

property is also fairly well settled. Though by virtue of

Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped

from challenging the title of his landlord, yet the tenant is

entitled to challenge the derivative title of an assignee of

the original landlord of the demised property in an action

brought by the assignee against the tenant for his eviction

under the rent laws. However, this right of a tenant i s

Husen 10 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

subject to one caveat that the tenant has not attorned to

the assignee. If the tenant pays rent to the assignee or

otherwise accepts the assignee's title over the demised

property, then it results in creation of the attornment

which, in turn, deprives the tenant to challenge the

derivative title of the landlord. (See Bismillah Be v. Majeed

Shah, para 24.)”

8. With such settled legal position, when the order of the Trial

Court as well as Appeal Court is perused, it is seen that, the Courts

have   considered   certified   copies   of   property   cards   (Exhibit-24

collectively) showing that original landlord acquired leasehold right

of the structure standing on the suit property and it is mutated in the

name   of   Plaintiff-Manohardevi   under   entry   dated   17.01.1981

indicating both Bhuridevi and Manohardevi having leasehold right. It

is settled position of law that one co-owner can file a suit on behalf of

all the other co-owners. Even the rent collector can maintain a suit

for   eviction   against   tenant.   The   Applicants   /   tenants   have   not

disputed the ownership of Chandmal Lodha and his wife Bhuridevi.

Tenants’ witness DW-1 has admitted that he is regularly paying rent

of the suit premises to present Plaintiffs and prior to Plaintiffs he

used to pay rent to Smt. Bhuridevi. He has further admitted that he

has not inquired with Bhuridevi how Manohardevi filed the suit

against him. He has also admitted that no case is filed challenging

conveyance deed in favour of Respondent No.2. He has also admitted

that   he   never   inquired   with   Bhuridevi   how   Sitaram   Enterprises

became owner of the suit premises. 

9. The   correspondence   between   Advocate   of   the   Plaintiff-

Husen 11 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

Manohardevi and Advocate of the Applicant-tenant is also on record

(Exhibit-28 collectively), which makes reference to Applicants paying

rent to Manohardevi. The Appeal Court has considered that tenants’

witness DW-1 has not denied the suggestion of landlord that he has

tendered the rent to Manohardevi and has also found that DW-1 has

cleverly avoided to give answer to suggestions of Plaintiff, by simply

stating that he does not remember that he paid rent to Manohardevi

from August 1996 to August 1997. On being confronted with rent

receipts (Exhibit-25 collectively), DW-1 has avoided to give answers.

DW-1 has also stated in evidence that Chandmal Lodha was the

landlord and   the Constituted Attorney Mr. Girish Mehta (through

whom suit has been filed by Manohardevi) was ‘rent collector’. The

Courts below have also considered rent receipts having signs of Girish

Kumar Mehta as rent collector. In the teeth of all this evidence, the

settled legal position has to be applied.

10. In  Vinay Eknath Lad (Supra),   relied   upon   by   Applicants

themselves, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"12. It has been held by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in

Bismillah Be v. Majeed Shah : (SCC p. 278, para24)

“24. Law relating to derivative title of the landlord

(lessor) and challenge, if made, to such title by the

tenant (lessee) during subsistence of tenancy in relation

to demised property is fairly well settled. Though by

virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the

tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his

landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the

Husen 12 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative title

of an assignee/vendee of the original landlord (lessor)

of the demised property in an action brought by the

assignee/vendee against the tenant for his eviction

from the demised property under the rent laws. This

right of a tenant is, however, subject to one caveat that

the tenant/lessee has not attorned to the

assignee/vendee. In other words, if the tenant/lessee

pays rent to the assignee/vendee of the tenanted

property then it results in creation of an attornment

between the parties which, in turn, deprives the

tenant/lessee to challenge the derivative title of an

assignee/vendee in the proceedings."

13. This authority has been followed in a later case, Apollo

Zipper (India) Ltd. v. W. Newman & Co. Ltd. It has been held

in this case: (SCC p. 754, para 42)

"42. ... Similarly, the law relating to derivative title to

the landlord and when the tenant challenges it during

subsistence of his tenancy in relation to the demised

property is also fairly well settled. Though by virtue of

Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped

from challenging the title of his landlord, yet the tenant

is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an

assignee of the original landlord of the demised

property in an action brought by the assignee against

the tenant for his eviction under the rent laws.

However, this right of a tenant is subject to one caveat

that the tenant has not attorned to the assignee. If the

tenant pays rent to the assignee or otherwise accepts

Husen 13 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

the assignee's title over the demised property, then it

results in creation of the attornment which, in turn,

deprives the tenant to challenge the derivative title of

the landlord."

11. It is therefore clear that the right of the tenant to challenge

derivative title of landlord’s assignee is subject to caveat that tenant

has not attorned to the assignee and if the tenant pays rent to

assignee, then it results creation of attornment, which bars the tenant

from challenging the derivative title.

12. In the present case, as discussed above, there is sufficient

evidence to indicate that the Applicants had paid rent to the Plaintiff-

Manohardevi and Girish Mehta was ‘rent collector’. Therefore there

was attornment between the parties. In that view of the matter, the

argument about derivative title has no merit. It is rejected. 

13. So   far   as   the   argument   about   erection   of   permanent

structure/addition   and   alteration   in   permanent   nature   and   acts

contrary to Section 108(o) of the TP Act is concerned, those grounds

are   held   to   be   proved   concurrently   by   the   Courts   below   on

appreciation   of   Evidence.  Applicants   were   required   to   file   suits

against Municipal Corporation about notices regarding unauthorised

construction in suit  premises. Those suits are  dismissed. Even if

appeals are pending there is sufficient indication that unauthorised

construction   was   raised.   In   any   case   tenants’   witness   DW-1   has

admitted that the Municipal Corporation had demolished part of the

suit   premises   twice   on   the   ground   that   it   was   unauthorized.

Therefore, there is no perversity in the concurrent findings arrived at

Husen 14 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

by the Courts below.

14. In the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section

115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 re-appreciation of evidence (for

coming to contrary finding) is not possible. 

15. The argument about non-availability of family arrangement of

1994 or earlier Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Girish Mehta or

about Bhuridevi expiring later in 2002, are in the nature of roving

inquiry by the tenant about the internal arrangement of the landlord's

family, which cannot be permitted under the guise of challenge to

derivative title. It is because it is sufficiently established that there

was attornment. Since name of Plaintiff-Manohardevi is appearing in

the property cards along with Bhuridevi from 1981 and since her

Constituted Attorney Mr. Girish Mehta has been admitted as ‘rent

collector’ by the tenant, challenge to title of Plaintiff-Manohardevi for

the purpose of maintaining suit under Bombay Rent Act, must fail.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings arrived at by the Courts

below are neither based on perverse appreciation of evidence nor on

misreading of pleadings and evidence. The concurrent findings are

most probable ones. Therefore the same are not being interfered

with, following principles laid down about ‘revisional jurisdiction’ in

paragraph 10 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav [1965 SCC

OnLine SC 83]  and paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in HPCL Vs. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78].

17. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. Decree of

Husen 15 

CRA-520-2013(J) (Dhing) C2.doc

eviction in favour of the Respondent-landlord is confirmed.

18. The Applicants are granted 6 weeks time to handover vacant

and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondent-

landlord, subject to the Applicants and their adult family members

filing undertaking in this Court, within 2 weeks from today, stating

that they shall not create third party interest or induct third party in

the suit premises. 

19. The Applicants are directed to clear the arrears as per the order

dated 21.08.2013, from June 2025 till end of May, 2026.

20. In view of the disposal of the Revision Application, pending

Interim Applications are also disposed of in above terms.

21. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed

copy of this order.  

                  (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen 16