39.wp6648.2025jud.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6648 OF 2025 1 Ravindra s/o Ramdayal Jha Aged : 74 years, Occupation : Retired, 2 Manish s/o Vijaykumar Jha Aged – 52 years, Occ. Service, Both 1 & 2, R/o. Flat No.102, Shivarani Heights, Gokul Housing Society, Gorewada Road, Borgaon, Nagpur – 440013 ... Petitioners Versus Mr. Anand S/o Jagannath Gulhane Aged : 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o. C/o. Manju Gulhane, B-20, WCL Indora Housing Complex, Kalpana Nagar, Nagpur – 440026 ... Respondent Mr. A.M. Jaltare, Advocate a/w Mr. Nikhil D. Dawda, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 05.10.2026 JUDGMENT: Heard. (2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. (3) The present petition challenges the judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. the Court of District Judge -5, Nagpur in Regular PAGE 1 OF 5 2026:BHC-NAG:13557 39.wp6648.2025jud.odt Civil Appeal No.124/2020. By way of said judgment, the appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court for its fresh adjudication in accordance with law after hearing the parties again. (4) The facts as can be seen from the petition are as under : (5) The respondent herein, who is tenant of the premises filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.255/2012 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The principal relief claimed in the suit was regarding declaration that the petitioners i.e. landlords herein are trying to extinguish the tenancy rights over the suit premises. A further declaration was claimed that the original plaintiff is entitled for the tenanted suit premises on reconstruction or erecting a new building over the same. (6) As can be seen from the judgment of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, i.e. the trial Court, that both the parties were somewhat negligent in adducing their own evidence or subjecting themselves to cross-examination. In that factual aspect of the matter, the trial Court dismissed the suit as according to it, the plaintiff was not able to prove his right for declaration and injunction as claimed. PAGE 2 OF 5 39.wp6648.2025jud.odt In the said judgment, an observation is made that, if the plaintiffs are evicted without following due procedure of law then the proper recourse would be to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, for possession. (7) Being aggrieved by this, the respondent herein filed an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.124/2020. By way of the impugned judgment, the appellate Court has remanded the matter to the trial Court. As stated supra, the said judgment is under challenge. (8) I have heard Mr. Jaltare, learned counsel a/w Mr. Dawda, learned counsel for the petitioners. A fervent attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his stand that the appellate Court was not justified in remanding the matter. He draw support from an observation by the trial Court regarding the maintainability of the very suit itself and the fact that, if the tenant was aggrieved by the dispossession a proper course would have been to file a suit under Section 6 of the Specif Relief Act and not a suit for declaration and injunction. He, therefore, submits that even though there was some inadvertence or negligence inasmuch as the parties did not lead evidence nor they were cross-examined completely, it is his PAGE 3 OF 5 39.wp6648.2025jud.odt submission that the appellate Court ought to have decided the matter on merits. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1056, Shivram Ladu Nitardekar Vs. Alex Fernandes & Others, as also judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (5) Mah. LJ 520, Chaganbhai Patel Vs. Lilabai wd/o G.M. Jathar and others, to draw support on this point. (9) I have perused both these judgments. The said judgments rely and decide the question as to whether the tenancy extinguishes after collapse of a tenement for whatever the reasons for the collapse. The judgment of Chaganbhai Patel (supra) also proceeds on a merits of the matter as to the maintainability of the suit at the behest of the tenant when he looses possession. (10) Both these judgments can have hardly any relevance in the matter. The facts are glaring enough to show that the impugned judgment only remands the matter to the trial Court directing him to decide the matter on its merits which obviously would include the maintainability of the suit. In view of fact that, the tenant himself have carried the repairs of the premises and eventually has lost possession. All these aspects in my considered opinion would be a PAGE 4 OF 5 39.wp6648.2025jud.odt matter of merits where the respective contentions of the parties would be tested on examination and cross-examination. (11) After going through the judgment of the appellate Court and also the trial Court, I find nothing wrong in the said judgment. The said judgment moreover of the appellate Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor can it said to be perverse in nature. The only aspect which seems to have weighed, the appellate Court is a sufficient opportunity to both the parties to put-forth their respective claims. The contentions of the petitioners in that regard cannot be set to be well founded. Having recorded these observations, I find nothing wrong in the judgment impugned. The petition lacks merits liable to be rejected and it is rejected. (12) Rule discharged. [Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.] Prity PAGE 5 OF 5 Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 18:42:00