Demolition Of Tenanted Premises During Eviction Suit Does Not Extinguish Tenancy Or Defeat Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that demolition of tenanted premises during the pendency of an eviction suit does not extinguish the tenancy nor defeat the landlord's bona fide requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA). The Court observed that where tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land, both the land and the superstructure constitute the subject matter of demise, and destruction of the building alone does not render the eviction proceedings infructuous.
Justice M.M. Sathaye was hearing a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the CPC filed by the landlord challenging the judgment vide which the Appellate Court had set aside the decree of eviction granted by the Trial Court. The landlord had instituted the suit seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the ground floor premises on the grounds of bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) and non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the MRCA. During the pendency of the appeal, the building, including the suit premises, was demolished pursuant to municipal notice on account of its dangerous condition. The Trial Court decreed eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement and non-user. The Appellate Court, however, reversed the decree, holding that since the suit premises had been demolished, the ground of bona fide requirement did not survive, and the plea of non-user could not be sustained.
The Court held that when tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land, both the land and the building form the subject matter of the demise and destruction of the building alone does not determine the tenancy so long as the land continues to exist.
“… once the tenancy is created in respect of the premises in the building standing on the land, it is 'the building and the land' which are both components of the subject matter of demise and destruction of the building alone does not determine the tenancy when the land, which is the site of the building continues to exist,” the Court observed.
On the issue of bona fide requirement, the Court held that the crucial date for assessing bona fide requirement is the date of institution of the suit, and subsequent events can be considered only if they completely eclipse or extinguish the need. It held that demolition of the structure did not ipso facto nullify the landlord's requirement. It observed:
“… despite demolition of the suit premises, the tenancy right subsists, the requirement as pleaded on the date of suit will have to be considered and therefore, since on the date of filing of suit, the suit premises existed, though in a deliberated condition, the requirement cannot be disbelieved.”
Holding that the Appellate Court had misread pleadings and evidence and that its approach amounted to perverse appreciation resulting in miscarriage of justice, the High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction and interfered with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application was partly allowed. The judgment dated 12/09/2024 was quashed and set aside, and the decree of eviction dated 03/07/2018 was restored on the grounds of bona fide requirement and non-user.
Case Title: Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti & Anr. v. M/s. Govindram Shobharam and Company [Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 81
Appearances:
For the Applicants: Mr. Abhishek T. Ingale (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. T. S. Ingale.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni i/b. Mr. Sarthak Diwan.