Goregaon Tenant Evicted After 16-Year Legal Battle: Court Rules in Favor of Landlord

After nearly 16 years of litigation, the Court of Small Causes, Bandra branch, has ordered the eviction of a 60-year-old Goregaon tenant, ruling in favor of 83-year-old landlord Prakash Keshav Gavankar.

The appellate bench, comprising Additional Chief Judge A.A. Ayachit and Judge D.R. Mali, has set aside a 2022 trial court order that had dismissed the landlord’s eviction suit.

The dispute revolved around a 220 sq. ft. chawl room at Gavankar Chawl, Ganesh Nagar, where the tenant Manjula Chandrakant Patel had been residing. Gavankar sought eviction on multiple grounds, including non-payment of rent and non-occupation of the premises.

The trial court had earlier ruled against eviction, but on appeal, the judges found that Patel had failed to use the premises for over six months preceding the filing of the suit in 2009, which amounted to a violation under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Considering our findings, the landlord (plaintiff) has failed to prove that the defendant (tenant) committed default in the payment of rent. However, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant was not using the premises for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of more than six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. With the mentioned reasons and discussion, we conclude that the plaintiff has proved the ground of non-user. Therefore, as per Sections of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction.

The trial court had rightly held that the defendant is not a defaulter in the payment of rent, but it failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence regarding non-user of the suit premises. Hence, the trial court’s finding on this issue requires interference, as it is not just, legal, or proper. Accordingly, this court is required to set aside that finding on the ground of non-user, the court held.

While the court rejected Gavankar’s claim of rent arrears, it directed Patel to hand over quiet, vacant, and peaceful possession of the premises within three months.

Patel’s counsel, Advocate V.R. Tripathi, had argued that she continued to occupy the premises and was willing to pay rent, citing medical reasons for her frequent stays in Gujarat. However, the court noted that key documents, including voter ID and ration cards, indicated her residence in Gujarat rather than Mumbai during the disputed period.