1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.3754 OF 2021

PADAM S/O ROSHANLAL GHAI & ORS.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

DR. BALASAHEB S/O WASUDEORAO MOTGHARE

…RESPONDENT

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.3810 OF 2021

PADAM S/O ROSHANLAL GHAI & ORS.

...PETITIONERS

VERSUS

DR. BALASAHEB S/O WASUDEORAO MOTGHARE

…RESPONDENT

O R D E R

The petitioners have been tenant in the shop initially let out by

the father of the respondent in the year 1971. In the year 2009, the

respondent filed a suit for eviction and possession as well as mesne

profit under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on 05.03.2015 after

holding that there was bona fide need of the plaintiff­respondent of the

suit property. Thereafter, an appeal filed by the petitioners was

dismissed by the District Judge on 28.09.2016 with the direction to

Digitally signed by

GULSHAN KUMAR

ARORA

Date: 2021.03.05

16:14:13 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

the petitioners to handover possession within 30 days.

2.

The petitioners, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition which was also

dismissed by the High Court on 12.07.2019, and time was granted till

31.10.2019 to vacate the said premises.

3.

The petitioners, then, filed Special Leave Petitions before this

Court, which were also dismissed on 03.10.2019 with the following

order:

“The Special Leave Petitions are

dismissed. However, on the request of the

learned counsel for the petitioners, we allow

the petitioners further period till 31^st March,

2020 to vacate the premises subject to filing of

usual undertaking within four weeks from

today.

Pending application(s), if any, stands

disposed of accordingly.”

Even then the petitioners did not vacate the said premises and

chose to file a Review Petition before the High court, which was also

dismissed on 12.02.2021. Challenging the said Order, these Special

Leave Petitions have been filed.

4.

In the aforesaid facts of this case, it is absolutely clear that the

petitioners, as tenant, are wanting to cling on to the property in

question, even after having lost from all the Courts, including this

Court.

5.

The Special Leave Petitions against the Order of the Writ Court

3

was dismissed on 03.10.2019, whereby they were directed to vacate

the premises by 31.03.2020. The Review Petition was also filed on

flimsy ground that some compromise has been entered into in 1979

between the father of the petitioners on one side and the respondent.

The same has been dismissed by the High Court after noticing that the

suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff respondent in the year 2009,

which was 30 years after the alleged compromise is said to have been

entered into in 1979. It has also been rightly held that the aspect of

res judicata will not apply when eviction is sought on the ground of

bona fide need. We see no ground to interfere with the said Order

passed by the High Court.

6.

Accordingly, these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

7.

From the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the petitioners

are trying to cling on to the property, even though the petitioners have

lost from all Courts. In the earlier Special Leave Petitions, petitioners

were directed to vacate the premises by 31.03.2020, which they have

not vacated. Thus, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have

abused the process of law in managing to remain in possession of the

property in question, especially after the direction of this Court’s Order

dated 03.10.2019 passed while dismissing earlier Special Leave

Petitions of the petitioners.

4

8.

In the aforesaid circumstances, while dismissing these Special

Leave Petitions, we impose cost of Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty

Thousand), which shall be paid to the plaintiff­respondent and also

direct tha