The Bombay High Court has upheld an eviction decree passed in favour of a charitable trust in a long-running dispute over a hotel property in Mahabaleshwar, ruling that the occupant failed to establish any lawful tenancy or irrevocable licence rights over the premises.
Justice M.M. Sathaye dismissed two civil revision applications filed by Sau. Sumitra Pradeepkumar Dixit, affirming concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court that the property had been occupied without proving any valid authority from the trust.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned a building known as "Rajendra Kutir" or "Shanti Niketan" situated at Mahabaleshwar in Satara district. The property belongs to Gangadhar Makharia Charitable Trust.
According to the trust, the premises had originally been given on licence decades ago for running a hotel business. The trust later alleged that the occupants had inducted other persons into the property without its permission and had also carried out unauthorized construction.
In 1999, the trust filed a suit seeking possession of the property. It also claimed that the premises were required for expansion of the educational activities conducted by the trust.
Sumitra Dixit, who was later added as a defendant, asserted that she had been occupying the property since 1986 as a lawful tenant. She contended that she had invested substantial amounts in renovation and improvements and that her possession was with the knowledge and consent of the trust.
She also filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that she was either a lawful tenant or, alternatively, an irrevocable licensee.
Courts Below Ruled Against Occupant
The Civil Judge at Mahabaleshwar decreed the eviction suit in 2012 and dismissed Dixit's counterclaim.
Subsequently, the District Judge at Satara dismissed her appeals in 2020, confirming both the eviction decree and the rejection of her tenancy claim.
Dixit then approached the High Court through revision proceedings challenging those findings.
Court Examines Jurisdiction and Tenancy Claims
Before the High Court, the applicant argued that the suit itself was not maintainable under the Bombay Rent Act and that she had not been properly proceeded against.
The court, however, found that the dispute squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the rent court.
Justice Sathaye observed that the applicant herself had consistently claimed to be a lawful tenant and had sought a declaration of tenancy through her counterclaim.
The court noted:
“For deciding such claim of tenancy, the Court has to exercise rent jurisdiction as provided under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.”
The judge further held that the absence of a Small Causes Court at Mahabaleshwar did not create any jurisdictional difficulty because the Civil Judge exercised the relevant rent jurisdiction for that area.
Failure to Prove Lawful Induction
A central issue in the case was the applicant's assertion that she had been inducted into the property through a power of attorney holder acting on behalf of the trust.
The High Court noted that the alleged power of attorney was never produced before the court. Both the trial court and appellate court had found that no document establishing lawful authority for her induction was proved.
Justice Sathaye observed that the foundation of her claim rested on a document that was neither produced nor established during the proceedings.
The court stated:
“The genesis of Revision Applicant's entry in the suit property remains without permission of the Plaintiff-Trust.”
The judgment also recorded that receipts, agreements and other documents relied upon by the applicant were executed by another defendant without any proven authority from the trust.
Court Finds Ground of Unlawful Sub-Letting Established
The High Court further noted that the appellate court had already concluded that the trust successfully proved unlawful induction of the applicant into the property without its permission.
According to the court, this constituted a valid ground for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
The judge rejected arguments that the decree had been based only on the failure of the applicant to prove tenancy rights, observing that the appellate court had independently found unlawful sub-letting established on the evidence.
Decision
Dismissing both revision applications, the Bombay High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on the evidence on record and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error.
“The concurrent findings of fact are found to be based on material available on record. There is no perversity or jurisdictional error,” the court observed.
The court consequently refused to interfere with the eviction decree and dismissal of the counterclaim. However, it granted the applicant eight weeks' time to vacate the property, subject to filing an undertaking before the court within two weeks and ensuring that no third-party rights are created during that period.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sau. Sumitra Pradeepkumar Dixit v. Gangadhar Makharia Charitable Trust & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Revision Application No. 23 of 2021 along with Civil Revision Application No. 24 of 2021
Judge: Justice M.M. Sathaye
Decision Date: June 16, 2026
