HC restores possession of Grant Road flat, grabbed by caretaker, to daughter of deceased senior citizen
The Bombay High Court ordered a caretaker to return a flat to the deceased owner's daughter, criticizing the caretaker's "bizarre" claims and technicalities.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ordered that a five-room Grant Road flat be handed back to the daughter of a deceased senior citizen, calling it a “classic case of a caretaker grabbing the property by taking advantage of vulnerability and hospitalisation.”
Justice Sandeep V Marne delivered the ruling while deciding cross applications filed by Maharukh Mediomah Patel and Ruksana Barodawala over possession of a first-floor flat in Abbasi Building on Pathe Bapurao Marg.
Dispute began during father’s hospitalisation
According to the case, Maharukh’s parents had lived in three rooms of the flat since 1960. Ruksana and her husband, who had originally entered the premises as caretakers of an elderly neighbour, occupied the remaining two rooms.
The arrangement collapsed in August 2013, when Maharukh’s father suffered an accident and was admitted to Masina Hospital. During his hospitalisation, Ruksana allegedly removed the common passage door and replaced it with a new one locked from her side, effectively blocking access to Maharukh and her bedridden father.
After her father died in December 2013, Maharukh, who lived abroad, returned to Mumbai on February 4, 2014 to find that Ruksana had taken exclusive control of all five rooms.
Maharukh filed a police complaint and then approached the Bombay City Civil Court seeking recovery of possession of the three rooms and toilet her family had occupied for decades. She argued that her parents had been in uninterrupted possession since 1960, and that Ruksana had forcibly dispossessed her father during his hospital stay.
The trial court agreed that Ruksana had unlawfully taken over the premises. However, it dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the description of the disputed portion was not “precise enough” for execution of the decree, claiming difficulty in identifying the three rooms and toilet.
HC criticises ‘hyper-technical’ approach
The High Court strongly disagreed, noting that sketch plans were filed with the plaint clearly demarcating each of the five rooms. Justice Marne said Maharukh had “practically succeeded in the suit” but was wrongly denied relief due to a “hyper-technical approach” that overshadowed substantive justice.
Calling the caretaker’s defence “bizarre and dishonest,” the court observed that a person does not lose possession of his home merely because he is hospitalised. It rejected Ruksana’s claim that the senior citizen had “relinquished” his rights the moment he was admitted to hospital.
The court also expressed discomfort with how the caretaker, who entered the property as a caretaker’s spouse, suddenly asserted tenancy rights over the entire flat. It noted that the elderly tenant reportedly lived for another 17 years after the alleged transfer of tenancy, raising questions about the authenticity of the claim.
“The approach of the courts must further the cause of justice and not deny it on pedantic technicalities,” Justice Marne said while directing that possession be restored to Maharukh. The court also ordered that the decree be executed based on the sketch plan annexed to the plaint.
The Bombay High Court has ordered the return of a five-room flat to Maharukh Mediomah Patel, following a dispute with caretaker Ruksana Barodawala, who allegedly seized the property during Maharukh's father's hospitalization. The court criticized the trial court's "hyper-technical" approach and emphasized that hospitalization does not equate to relinquishing possession rights, ensuring justice prevails.