Bombay High Court Slams Party For Obstructing 2011 Eviction Decree; Imposes 25K Costs & Orders Immediate Possession Warrant

The Bombay High Court has held that it cannot remain a mute spectator when execution of its orders is kept pending for an indefinite period despite there being no subsisting restraint. The Court observed that a decree which remains unexecuted defeats the very purpose of justice, and delay in execution deprives the decree holder of the fruits of the litigation.

Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar was hearing a writ petition challenging the execution of a possession warrant arising from long-pending eviction proceedings initiated in 1992 by a lessee against a tenant company, which ultimately led to a 2011 High Court order directing eviction. Although execution proceedings were permitted in 2015 and a possession warrant was issued in 2023, the decree remained unimplemented. The petitioner, who was neither a tenant nor a sub-tenant, claimed possession based on an alleged oral assurance from the tenant to sell the property and repeatedly initiated proceedings, including writ petitions and applications, to obstruct the execution process, despite the record showing that due process had been followed through notices and orders in the execution proceedings.

The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly had no material to show any lawful authority to occupy the property. It was observed that even according to the petitioner, his possession was based solely on an oral assurance allegedly given by an official of the tenant company. The Court held that such an arrangement did not have any legal sanctity and could not bind either the lessee or the lessor, particularly in respect of a leasehold property.

A significant aspect noted by the Court was the conduct of the petitioner in making statements regarding the pendency of proceedings before the District Court, despite having already withdrawn them. The Court observed that such conduct, including making statements on oath and subsequently altering the stand through amendment, demonstrated lack of bona fides and an attempt to secure favourable orders.

The Court also took note of the prolonged delay in execution of the eviction decree, which had its origin in 1992 and culminated in a decree in 2011. It was observed that despite there being no interim protection in favour of the petitioner after November 2023, the possession warrant had not been executed by the authorities. It emphasized that a decree is executed, the verdict merely remains a decision without any fruit of the justice to the decree holder. If the directions and orders passed by the Courts and the Authorities under Law are not effectively and timely implemented, the justice pronounced shall remain only a portrayed lantern.

“This Court won't anymore act as a mute spectator to see how execution of the orders passed by it remains pending for an indefinite period at the whims and pleasure of the executing authorities,” the court observed,

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Circle Officer, Aurangabad to execute the possession warrant dated 07.02.2023 and hand over possession of the property to the respondent within four weeks, with a direction to file a compliance report. The Court further imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited within four weeks, and permitted the respondent to withdraw the same.

Case Title: Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar v. The Deputy Collector & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO.11469 OF 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 162

Click Here To Read/Download Order