13-WP-7631-2017.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7631 OF 2017 Sanjay Prakash Indalkar … Petitioner Vs. Arvind Jamnadas Shah … Respondents (since deceased) through LRs and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7631 OF 2017 Arvind Jamnadas Shah (since deceased) through LRs and Others... Applicants In the matter between Sanjay Prakash Indalkar … Petitioner Vs. Arvind Jamnadas Shah … Respondents (since deceased) through LRs and Others Mr. J. S. Kini a/w. Mr. Aum Kini and Mr.Parth Kini i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey for the Petitioner. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the third party – intervenor who had objected to the decree holders 1/4 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.10.01 16:29:54 +0530 13-WP-7631-2017.docx application for destroying articles found in the premises at the time of execution of the eviction decree. The petitioner had initially filed an application seeking stay to the execution and for restoration of the possession on the ground that he had filed a declaratory suit that he is a protected tenant of the suit premises. The said application was rejected on 11th April 2017. Admittedly, the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. 2. In the application filed by the landlord to destroy the articles, the petitioner applied for handing over the articles to the petitioner. The trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was unable to show that the articles belonged to him. The application for restoration of possession was also dismissed. Hence, the trial court held that in the absence of any evidence to show that the articles belonged to the third party, he would not be entitled to any relief. Hence, the decree holders application was allowed to destroy the articles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the bailiffs report to point out that the articles belonged to him. He submits that the bailiffs report would indicate that the 2/4 13-WP-7631-2017.docx articles belonged to the petitioner. He relies upon the bailiff report to show that when the bailiff reached the suit premises one Shri Gajanan Jitas Jagtap was found in the premises who informed that he was staff of the petitioner who was occupying the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the very fact that the petitioner’s staff was found in the premises would show that the articles belonged to the petitioner. 4. The trial court has rejected the petitioner’s contention for receiving articles mainly on the ground that his earlier application seeking restoration of possession on the ground that he was occupying premises was dismissed and never challenged by the petitioners. Once the eviction decree was executed and the possession was recovered in view of the eviction decree against the tenant the petitioner would not be entitled to seek any relief in the absence of any evidence to show that the articles belonged to him. Mere bailiff report cannot be considered as proof that the petitioner is concerned with the suit premises or the articles lying in the suit premises at the time of execution of the eviction decree. 5. The trial court has therefore rightly refused to handover 3/4 13-WP-7631-2017.docx the articles to the petitioner in the absence of any supporting evidence. 6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order warranting any interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 8. Pending civil application is disposed of as infructuous. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 4/4