KHURSHED RUSTOM ENGINEER vs AJITA RANJIT MADHAVJI AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

29 CRA 16.2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2025 Khurshed Rustom Engineer …Applicant Versus Ajita Ranjit Madhavji & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w Mr. Vivek Khemka and Mr. Rushabh Thacker i/by V.V. Khemkar and Rushabh Thacker, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Viren Asar a/w Mr. Saiyed Sahil, Ahuramazda Postwalla, Dharshanadivya Subramanian i/by Saiyed Sahil, Advocate for Respondents (Original Petitioner) Ajita Madhavji & Ors. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 February 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Thorat, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Viren Asar, learned Counsel for the Respondents. Challenge: 2. By the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 20th February 2019 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.1038/1876 of 1998 as well as the Judgment and Decree dated 23rd October 2024 passed by the learned Appellate Page 1 of 30 Dusane 29 CRA 16.2025.DOC Bench of Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No.150 of 2019. Both the learned Courts have passed concurrent decree on the ground of acquisition of an alternate premises and on the ground of bonafide requirement. Submissions of the Applicant: 3. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the Applicant raised the following contentions :- i. Every time written statement has been amended pointing out certain aspects and thereafter the Plaint has been amended accordingly and thus Plaintiff has not come with clean hands. He submitted that therefore both the Courts have committed error in decreeing the suit on the ground of bonafide requirement. ii. He submitted that the Plaintiff was in possession of the residential premises in an adjoining build