When a Locked Shop Meets a Probate Administrator: Bombay High Court Draws the Line

In a stern message against the misuse of probate proceedings, the Bombay High Court has rejected an attempt by claimed tenants to intervene in a long-pending testamentary suit, slapped them with Rs 25 lakh in exemplary costs, and issued a show-cause notice for possible contempt after discovering the sealed premises had been tampered with.

The Sealed Door That Opened Old Wounds

The dispute centres on a ground-floor garage shop in the Roshni building at Charni Road, Mumbai. Auto Credit Corporation and one of its partners, Rekha Prakash Jain, sought to intervene in Testamentary Suit No 94 of 2011. They wanted the court-appointed Administrator to remove seals placed on the premises so they could resume business operations. The applicants insisted they were lawful tenants who had been paying rent for decades.

The court, however, found the claim legally untenable in a probate case.

Competing Narratives of Possession and Authority

The applicants argued that they had been tenants since 1991, that two recovery suits filed by the original landlady had been dismissed, and that pending civil revision applications kept their tenancy alive. They pointed to a tendered banker’s cheque for accumulated rent and alleged that the Administrator had exceeded his powers by sealing the shop without proper authority or notice.

The Administrator countered that the premises had always appeared locked, that no tenancy documents proved Rekha Jain or the current entity as the recognised tenant, and that rent payments had stopped years earlier. More seriously, he revealed that someone had breached the rear door after sealing and stocked the premises with sofas, glassware and chairs—facts later confirmed by a Court Commissioner’s report.

Why Tenants Cannot Gate-Crash a Probate Court

The High Court held that the Chamber Summons was “wholly misconceived”. Any claim of tenancy, it ruled, must be established before the Small Causes Court, which enjoys exclusive jurisdiction. The applicants, at best, were mere occupants who possessed “no right, title, or interest to assign or create third-party rights”.

The court further noted that the Administrator’s mandate was limited to rent collection; sealing was a protective measure taken after repeated failures by the applicants to produce proof of authority. Attempts to create third-party rights in the absence of the deceased landlady and the clear evidence of tampering only compounded the misconduct.

Key Observations from the Judgment

“Any claim of tenancy must be established before the Small Causes Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction in that regard.”

“In my view, at best, Auto Credit Corporation can be construed merely as an occupant of the building and not as a tenant.”

“An occupant, per se, has no right, title, or interest to assign or create third-party rights to use, occupy, or carry on business from the premises without proper authority.”

“Such conduct cannot be countenanced.”

Costs as a Deterrent Against Frivolous Litigation

Invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v Pradnya Prakash Khadekar , the court emphasised that exemplary costs are essential to prevent litigants from exploiting procedural forms to delay justice. The applicants’ failure to tag related matters, their unauthorised entry into sealed premises, and the resulting derailment of the probate suit justified the unusually high penalty of Rs 25,00,000 payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.

Failure to pay within four weeks will trigger attachment of the applicants’ properties by the Collector.

A Clear Message for Future Litigants

By dismissing the Chamber Summons and listing the matter for compliance on 12 November 2025, the Bombay High Court has signalled that probate administrators will be protected when they act to preserve estate assets, and that collateral occupancy disputes belong in the appropriate forum—not inside a testamentary proceeding. The judgment serves as both a procedural clarification and a strong deterrent against attempts to create facts on the ground while litigation is pending.