Saki Naka Chawl dispute: HC rejects eviction injunction of tenant for suppressing facts

The landlord argued that tenant had surrendered tenancy after a leave and licence agreement was executed between her and tenant’s son in September 2022, so he cannot seek eviction injunction

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a tenant suppressing material facts cannot seek protection from eviction, especially after claiming an alternate accommodation and compensation.

Bombay High Court at Fort (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

The case arose from a tenancy dispute at Bachubhai Chawl in Kurla West, which became the subject plot of the Andheri-Kurla road widening project implemented by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). To avail the project benefits, the landlord allegedly threatened to dispossess the tenant, Ramprakash Chowdhry. However, the tenant instituted a suit seeking a temporary injunction against eviction. On the other hand, the landlord argued that Chowdhary had surrendered tenancy after a leave and licence agreement was executed between her and Chowdhary’s son in September 2022.

Subsequently, Chowdhary’s application for a temporary injunction was rejected by a trial court on the ground that he had suppressed material facts and had not approached the court with clean hands.

In October 2024, the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court interfered with the order after noting that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the documents appeared suspicious, as the deed of surrender and the registered leave and licence agreement were executed on the same day, i.e., September 12, 2022. Consequently, the court considered it necessary to grant an interim injunction to the tenant.

Being aggrieved, the landlord approached the Bombay High Court in 2025 through senior advocate Surel Shah. He said the Appellate Bench committed a manifest error in law in transgressing the jurisdictional limits in the matter of interference and completely ignored the material suppression of facts. He also submitted that Chowdhary cannot seek relief now, as he has already claimed an alternate accommodation after two of his shops were demolished due to the project.

Countering this, advocate Sunil Mishra, for Chowdhary, highlighted dates on the documents, saying it was beyond logic for the tenant to surrender tenancy rights only to reoccupy the same premises on licence.

A single bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar observed in a July order, which was recently made available, that the Appellate Bench did not consider the consequences the suppression of material facts entailed, especially in the matter of the grant of equitable relief. “The law has developed to the point that the litigants who approach the court with unclean hands are not even entitled to be heard on the merits of their case,” the court said.

The bench acknowledged the evidence of the alternate accommodation allotted and compensation given to Chowdhary and his family members. “In the absence of the assertion of any proprietary rights over the suit premise, the owner of the premises could not have been restrained from exercising the incident of ownership over the suit premises,” the court concluded. Accordingly, the court quashed the order passed by the appellate court and restored the trial court’s refusal of the injunction.