24-CRA-530-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 530 OF 2019 Dr. Deepak Chhotelal Agarwal. …Applicant Vs. Pradeep Chhotelal Agarwal (deceased) Thr. Lrs. Neeta Pradeep Agarwal and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sndeep S. Jinsiwale for the applicant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is the tenant of the suit premises. The plaintiff is one of the sons of the original tenant, i.e. Mr. Chhotelal Bhagwandas Agarwal. Respondent no.1 is the plaintiff’s brother in whose name the rent receipt is transferred. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords. The original tenant has expired on 26th September 1989. According to the plaintiff the rent receipt was transferred in the name of defendant no.1 sometime in 2001. Hence, the suit was filed on 19th January 2006 seeking 1/4 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:39284 24-CRA-530-2019.docx declaration of tenancy. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the consent letter at Exhibit ‘89’ showing that the other heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant had consented for transferring the rent receipt in the name of defendant no.1 is not proved in evidence. The applicant had specifically denied that he had anytime consented to transfer the rent receipt in the name of defendant no.1. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon Section 7 (15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. He contends that the applicant would be entitled for a declaration of tenancy as he was residing along with the original tenant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the courts have failed to take into consideration the substantial evidence produced by the applicant to show that he was residing in the suit premises and therefore, he would be entitled for a declaration. 3. I have perused the papers of the application. The date of death of the original tenant is not in dispute. If the applicant seeks a declaration of tenancy on the ground that he was residing along with the original tenant at the time of his death, it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove with 2/4 24-CRA-530-2019.docx supporting evidence that he was residing with the original tenant at the time of his death. The plaintiff is not seeking any declaration on the ground of any assignment of the tenancy, but he seeks a declaration in terms of Section 7 (15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 under which the tenancy can be claimed on the ground that the plaintiff was residing along with the original tenant at the time of his death. 4. Both the courts have concurrently held that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff was residing with the tenant at the time of his death. Both the courts have discussed the pleading and the evidence on record which shows that the plaintiff commenced his medical practice at Neera, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune in 1979 and in 1997, he started the hospital at Hadapsar, Pune. Thus, from the plaintiff’s own contention it appears that when the original tenant had expired on 26th September 1989, the plaintiff was residing at a different place. The other documentary evidence in the form of bank statements is disbelieved by both the courts on the ground that they do not show that the plaintiff was residing with the original tenant at the time of his death. Filing of the suit after more than 16 years from the date of 3/4 24-CRA-530-2019.docx death is also considered as an important aspect to disbelieve the plaintiff’s theory of tenancy on the ground that he was residing with the original tenant at the time of his death. In the absence of any evidence that the plaintiff was residing with the original tenant at the time of his death, both the courts have rightly refused to grant any declaration. In the absence of any material produced by the plaintiff, the arguments raised on inadmissibility of letter at Exhibit ‘89’ would not be relevant and it is unnecessary to discuss it in this civil revision application. 5. I do not find any error in the reasons recorded by both the courts disbelieving the plaintiff’s theory of tenancy for seeking a declaration of tenancy under Section 7 (15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. There is no jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments warranting any interference in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). 6. The civil revision application, is therefore, dismissed. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4