Nagpur: Coming to a tenant's rescue, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court (HC) ruled that even if a shop was demolished by the civic body, his tenancy wouldn't end.
It took over 15 years for the court to dismiss second appeal filed by the Bajaj Nagar resident. The bitter legal dispute started about 26 years back, when the tenant filed a civil suit against landlord for allegedly demolishing a shop for new shopping-cum-residential complex without following due procedure.
"Merely because the shop block was demolished by Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT), the tenancy of respondent will not come to an end. The shop block leased out to him can't determine or terminate his tenancy rights," a single-judge bench comprising justice Vinay Deshpande held.
Petitioner Kunda Kolhatkar leased out a shop in Bajaj Nagar to tenant Lalit Agre as per an agreement inked between them on May 19, 1988, for 11 months. It was agreed that the tenant would pay Rs450 monthly rent and Rs10,000 deposit to the owner. The tenant continued to occupy the shop even after expiry of the agreement, but he was regularly paying monthly rent and no objection was raised by the owner.
A year later, Kolhatkar entered into a pact with a builder on August 23, 1990, to construct a new complex on the plot. She entered into another pact with Agre to vacate the shop in lieu of getting another one in new complex.
However, the respondent alleged that the petitioner deliberately displayed his shop as unauthorized in the old map and got new one sanctioned from the NIT, stating that it needs to be demolished. Subsequently, the civic body razed the shop.
The tenant filed a civil suit contending that he was a regular tenant as per agreement and can't be evicted from the premises without following due process of law. He also prayed for one shop in the new complex, as per the pact with owner. It was, however, dismissed by the trial court on September 15, 2000, which he challenged in the appellate court.
While partly allowing his appeal on May 4, 2002, the court directed the owner to hand over a shop to him in the new construction.
The petitioner challenged this order in the higher judiciary which was admitted on December 17, 2002, and came up for hearing earlier this year. "It's clear that the shop, in occupation with respondent, was demolished and he was evicted without following due process of law. The petitioner's submission that respondent is not entitled for a new shop as their original agreement for 11 months expired long back is misconceived," justice Deshpande stated, before rejecting the plea.
It took over 15 years for the court to dismiss second appeal filed by the Bajaj Nagar resident. The bitter legal dispute started about 26 years back, when the tenant filed a civil suit against landlord for allegedly demolishing a shop for new shopping-cum-residential complex without following due procedure.
"Merely because the shop block was demolished by Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT), the tenancy of respondent will not come to an end. The shop block leased out to him can't determine or terminate his tenancy rights," a single-judge bench comprising justice Vinay Deshpande held.
Petitioner Kunda Kolhatkar leased out a shop in Bajaj Nagar to tenant Lalit Agre as per an agreement inked between them on May 19, 1988, for 11 months. It was agreed that the tenant would pay Rs450 monthly rent and Rs10,000 deposit to the owner. The tenant continued to occupy the shop even after expiry of the agreement, but he was regularly paying monthly rent and no objection was raised by the owner.
A year later, Kolhatkar entered into a pact with a builder on August 23, 1990, to construct a new complex on the plot. She entered into another pact with Agre to vacate the shop in lieu of getting another one in new complex.
However, the respondent alleged that the petitioner deliberately displayed his shop as unauthorized in the old map and got new one sanctioned from the NIT, stating that it needs to be demolished. Subsequently, the civic body razed the shop.
The tenant filed a civil suit contending that he was a regular tenant as per agreement and can't be evicted from the premises without following due process of law. He also prayed for one shop in the new complex, as per the pact with owner. It was, however, dismissed by the trial court on September 15, 2000, which he challenged in the appellate court.
While partly allowing his appeal on May 4, 2002, the court directed the owner to hand over a shop to him in the new construction.
The petitioner challenged this order in the higher judiciary which was admitted on December 17, 2002, and came up for hearing earlier this year. "It's clear that the shop, in occupation with respondent, was demolished and he was evicted without following due process of law. The petitioner's submission that respondent is not entitled for a new shop as their original agreement for 11 months expired long back is misconceived," justice Deshpande stated, before rejecting the plea.
Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with News App. Download The Times of India news app for your device.
