Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2023 MOHAMMED ALI S/O. RAJABALLY YUSUFALLY ...APPLICANT Versus ATEEQ ANWAR AGBOATWALA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Arif Khan, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Anupam Surve a/w Mr. Nikhil Mutha & Ms. Ashwini Sonawane i/b M/s. Nanu Hormasjee And Co., Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2026. Per Court : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Suit filed by the Respondents is decreed against the Applicant on the ground of 7th JULY, 2026 Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx non-user of the suit premises for more than 6 months prior to the filing of the Suit. He submits that as regards the other issues before the Court, i.e. the ground of non-payment of rent, the learned Trial Court has held that there is no rent due and payable. 3. The learned Trial Court has formulated the issues as under :- SR. NO. ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants are not using the suit premises for more than six months prior to filing of the suit? In the affirmative 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants are in arrears of rent for the period from 1/6/2007 till 28/2/2011 @ Rs.195/- amounting to Rs.8,775/-? In the negative 2B. Whether the plaintiff proves unlawful subletting of the suit premises by defendant No.1 on or after 1/2/1973? In the negative 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mesne profits as claimed for? Inquiry is necessary 4. Whether the defendants prove that suit is not maintainable due to non- joinder of necessary parties? In the negative 7th JULY, 2026 Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx 4B. Whether the defendants are willing and ready to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiffs? In the negative 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as claimed for ? In the affirmative. 6. What order and decree ? As per order below 4. Only upon the issue of non-user for 6 months prior to filing of the Suit, the Suit is decreed as regards arrears, the learned Trial Court has held that there is no arrears of rent for the said period. 5. In the Appeal filed by the Appellant, the Appellate Court has also concurred on the non-user of the suit premises for more than 6 months prior to the filing of the Suit. The Appellate Court has also rendered a finding that under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the Applicant herein has failed to pay rent for more than 7-8 years during pendency and disposal of the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the Applicant has harped on the issue as regards non-user of the suit premises. He submits that on all other 7th JULY, 2026 Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx issues, i.e. the issue of sub-letting was not established and the electricity bills produced today before the Court, clearly established that the Applicant was in possession of the suit premises and was using the suit premises. Both the Courts have erred in not relying upon the electricity bills and therefore, had rendered an erroneous finding that the Applicant was not using the suit premises. 7. Even if this Court proceeds to examine the issue of non-user of suit premises for six months prior to filing of the Suit, however as regards the issue of non-payment of rent during pendency of the proceedings, learned counsel for Applicant has offered no explanation for the same before this Court. 8. Considering that there is non-payment of rent for 7-8 years during pendency of the proceedings, this Court would not entertain the present Revision Application and render any alternate finding on the aspect of non-user of the suit premises. 7th JULY, 2026 Gitalaxmi 30-CRA-754-2023.docx 9. Revision Application merits no consideration and accordingly dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 7th JULY, 2026 GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.07.23 10:54:13 +0530