Unlawful subletting constitutes continuing breach under Limitation Act s.22; eviction suit not barred while it continues. Multiple O.41 r.27 applications abuse process; no remand for undecided ones if dilatory.

Judgment:

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) The Applicant has filed the present Revision Application challenging the judgment and decree dated 22 January 2026 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No.302 of 2019 and confirming the decree of the Trial Court dated 6 July 2019 passed in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.643/1132 of 2008. The Trial Court had decreed the Suit filed by Respondent No.1-Plaintiff on the grounds of unlawful subletting and default in payment of rent. The Trial Court has directed Applicant/Defendant No.2 to handover possession of the suit properties to the Plaintiff with further direction for payment of arrears of rent as well as enquiry into mesne profits.

2) Room No. R/4, House No.411/Back, Ground floor, Kadri Mansion, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 is the ‘suit premises’. Building-Kadri Mansion was owned by the earlier owners, who had apparently inducted late Mr. Ballaram Hullaji as monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. Respondent No.1 /Plaintiff acquired ownership in respect of the land and the building Kadri Mansion vide four Deeds of Conveyance dated 30 September 2006 and 10 October 2006. After acquiring ownership in respect of the building, the Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mr. Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar to be in possession of the suit premises in which late Mr. Ballaram Hullaji was the tenant. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No.2 was inducted as unlawful sublettee in respect of the suit premises. An allegation of default in payment of rent was also raised. The Plaintiff also demanded arrears of rent vide Notice dated 24 February 2007. After failure on behalf of the Defendants to pay the rent, Plaintiff instituted R.A.E. & R. Suit No.643/1132 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes impleading ‘heirs and legal representatives’ of late Ballaram Hullaji as Defendant No.1 and Mr. Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar as Defendant No.2(Applicant). Later, the Plaint was amended by impleading the legal heirs of Defendant No.1. However, it appears that heirs of Defendant No.1 did not appear in the Suit nor filed written statement. The Applicant filed written statement resisting the Suit stating inter alia that Defendant No.1 had assigned and transferred tenancy rights in the suit property in November-1995 with the consent of erstwhile owners. However, on account of disputes between the owner and on account of appointment of Court Receiver, transfer of the tenancy rights could not be documented. That the rent in respect of the suit property was always paid by Defendant No.2. That even after receipt of notice dated 24 February 2007, the alleged arrears of rent were paid by Defendant No.2.

3) Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues relating to unalwful subletting, default in payment of rent and cause of wastage to the suit premises. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The Plaintiff examined its directors and relied on several documents. Defendant No.2 examined himself and also relied on several documents. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the Suit by accepting the grounds of unlawful subletting and default in payment of rent.

4) The Applicant/Defendant No.2 filed Appeal No.302 of 2019 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Ca