Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar vs The Deputy Collector Alias Rent … on 30 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13547
1
wp-11469-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11469 OF 2024
Shri Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar
Age: 46 years, Occupation: Business and Agri
Resident of: Plot No.13, 14
Sector N-1, Cidco, Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
.....PETITIONER
(Org. Applicant)
VERSUS
1. The Deputy Collector @ Rent Controller,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
2. The Circle Officer,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
3. Smt. Kanta Sadashiv Dahat
Through her Power of Attorney Holder,
Smt. Rachana Madrewal
Resident of: "Antardvip" Plot No.2-3,
Ranjanwan Housing Society, N-9, M-2 Road,
Cidco, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
4. M/s Ellora Steels Private Ltd.
Through its Liquidator
Having Office at 5th floor,
Bank of India Building,
High Court Premises, Fort,
Mumbai-32.
.....RESPONDENTS
(Nos.2 and 3 Org. Respondents)
2
wp-11469-2024
______________________________________________________
Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. B. B. Gunjal, AGP for respondent-State
Mr. Mahesh R. Sonawane, Advocate for the respondent no.3
______________________________________________________
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 30TH MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT :
–
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Pleadings
are complete by the contesting parties. At the instance of
parties, the Writ Petition is heard for final disposal.
1. Introduction:
The case is about execution of an eviction decree
ordered in 2011 arising out of eviction proceeding of 1992.
Execution remained pending for decades on account of failure
of the executives and at the instance of a stranger to the
litigation. The Petitioner who purports himself to have been
orally assured by the tenant that the tenant shall sell out the
‘subject-matter tenanted property’ to the petitioner, challenges
the execution of possession warrant under eviction decree
ordered against the tenant.
3
wp-11469-2024
2. Subject-matter:
‘Subject-matter property’ is a leasehold property
owned by the City and Industrial Development Corporation
Ltd. (‘C.I.D.C.O.’ for brevity). Lessee rented out it to the
Respondent No. 4, a company. An eviction proceeding was
filed by the Lessee against the tenant company in 1992 which
reached upto this Court. In 2011, this Court ordered eviction
of the Tenant within a stipulated time. An execution
proceeding was undertaken by the Lessee before the Rent
Control Officer. In 2015, Execution was ordered by the Rent
Control Officer after giving notice to all the concerned.
Possession warrant was issued in 2023. The Petitioner, a
stranger lodged objection that a word was given by the Tenant
to him that the tenant shall sell out the ‘subject-matter
property’ to him. Contending to have entered into possession
of the ‘subject-matter property’ on the basis of the word, the
Petitioner instituted atleast 06 proceedings including three
Writ Petitions to cancel the possession warrant. Under the
orders of this Court, the Rent Control Officer heard the
Petitioner and rejected his objection. Hence the Petitioner has
lodged present Writ Petition.
4
wp-11469-2024
3. Facts of the case:
i. The subject matter property was leased out by the
C.I.D.C.O. to one M. N. Wankhede on 07-12-1973. By
obtaining permission from the C.I.D.C.O., the Lessee
constructed a residential house thereon. Consequent to the
death of the Lessee in 1978, his daughter namely Kanta
Sadashiv Dahat placed her feet into the shoes of the Lessee by
approval of the C.I.D.C.O.
ii. The subject matter property was tenanted by the
Lessee to the respondent no.4- Ms. Ellora Steels Pvt. Ltd. The
tenant company defaulted the rent. On 06.10.1992, the Lessee
filed a proceedings against the tenant/respondent no.4 for
eviction under Section 12(2) (1), 15(b)(iii), 19(3) of the
Hyderabad Rent Control Act. The said proceedings was
dismissed vide order dated 29.12.1994.
iii. A Rent Appeal bearing no.4 of 1995 filed by the
Lessee/respondent no.3 was dismissed by the District Court,
Aurangabad on 07.12.1999. The Lessee filed Civil Revision
Application No.781 of 2000 in this Court against dismissal of
his Eviction Proceedings.
5
wp-11469-2024
iv. Vide its judgment and order dated 09.12.2011,
this Court allowed the Civil Revision Application and directed
the tenant/respondent no.4 to hand over possession of the
‘subject-matter property’ to the Lessee therein on or before
31.03.2012.
v. The respondent no.4- tenant sought review of the
order passed in the Civil Revision Application No.781/2000.
Vide order dated 14.09.2012 passed in Civil Application
No.143 of 2012, the Review Application came to be dismissed.
vi. Failure on the part of the Respondent No. 4 to
evict the ‘subject-matter property’ in terms of the directions
passed by this Court, constrained the Lessee- Respondent No.3
to file Execution Proceedings before the Rent Control Officer
(‘RCO’ for brevity).
vii. In the meantime, the Lessee executed a Deed of
Assignment with Lessor’s approval in favor of the Respondent
No. 3 namely Ms.Rachana Madrewar in respect of the ‘subject-
matter property’. The instrument was duly registered in the
office of the Sub Registry Aurangabad. The C.I.D.C.O.
recorded Ms. Madrewar’s name as Lessee of the ‘subject-
matter property’.
6
wp-11469-2024
viii. The Execution Proceedings remained pending for
a considerable period. Hence, a Writ Petition No.11212 of
2014 was filed by the respondent no.3/Lessee in this Court for
direction to conclude the Execution Proceedings expeditiously.
ix. On 10.12.2014, the Writ Petition came to be
disposed of by this Court with directions to the Rent Control
Officer Aurangabad to decide the Execution Proceedings
within a period of four weeks therefrom. The notices were
issued by the R.C.O. to the Tenant i.e. Respondent No.4 on all
the available addresses as also on the address of the subject
matter property. The notices were also served on the
liquidator of the respondent no.4.
x. Vide order dated 16.02.2015, the R.C.O. directed
the Lessee to publish the notice in execution in a Daily
Newspaper. Accordingly, on 17.02.2015 a notice to the
tenant/respondent no.4 was published in Daily Punya Nagari,
which is a widely circulated newspaper in Aurangabad district.
Despite having been served by the notice issued by the R.C.O.
vide ample opportunities and in multiple ways, the
Respondent no.4 did not respond to such notice nor did
appear in the Execution Proceedings.
7
wp-11469-2024
xi. As such, the R.C.O. Aurangabad allowed the
Execution Proceedings vide order dated 21.04.2015 (Exhibit-
E, Page no.40). A possession warrant was issued
independently for execution of the possession. Yet, the
possession warrant was not executed. Hence at the behest of
the Lessee, vide order dated 07.02.2023, the Circle Officer
Aurangabad was authorized and directed to take possession of
the ‘subject-matter property’, and to hand over to the Lessee
in terms of the orders passed by the High Court. The notice of
possession was affixed on the ‘subject-matter property’.
xii. Interestingly, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.
1699 of 2023 in this court challenging the Possession notice.
However, immediately the Writ Petition was withdrawn with
liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
xiii. Then, on 03.03.2023 the Petitioner filed a Civil
Miscellaneous Application bearing no.92 of 2023 before the
learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Aurangabad. This was an
application to condone the delay of 2873 days occurred in
challenging the order dated 21.04.2015, passed by the R.C.O.
in the Execution Proceedings. The possession notice dated
07.02.2023 was also put to challenge. (‘Rent Appeal
proceedings’ for brevity).
8
wp-11469-2024
xiv. During pendency of the Delay Condonation
Application before the District Court, the petitioner
simultaneously filed a proceeding before the Rent Control
Officer on 31.03.2023 for setting aside/recalling the order
dated 21.04.2015 passed in the Execution Proceedings.
xv. On 23-06-2023, the Petitioner filed a Pursis in the
District Court and withdrew the Rent Appeal proceedings with
delay condonation application. The Rent Appeal proceedings
were disposed of on 28.07.2023 in view of withdrawal pursis.
The withdrawal of proceedings expressly was to prosecute the
Objection Application in the Execution proceedings before the
R.C.O. Aurangabad.
xvi. In the Objection Application before the R.C.O.
against the Possession notice, the petitioner averred prayers
which are reproduced as follows:
1) By allowing application impugned dated
21.04.2015 passed by the Rent Controller
Aurangabad. Bearing No.2015/m-ft-Hkq-l/d` [kks fo
e /Hk-fu/fl vkj/91/ vks vkj lh-41. Be set-aside being
ex-parte one.
2) Darkhast filed by applicant Kanta Sadasshiv
Dahat be heard on merit.
9
wp-11469-2024
3) Applicant Kanta Sadashiv Dahat be directed
to add present applicant as party to darkhast
proceeding.
xvii. The Petitioner sought to say that he was inducted
by the Tenant i.e. R.No.4 into the subject matter property with
a word that the Tenant shall sell out the subject matter
property to him. He submitted to the R.C.O. that his Rent
Appeal proceedings were pending in the District Court.
Petitioner’s predominant contention was that he be given an
opportunity of hearing. Pertinent to note, petitioner
suppressed the withdrawal of Rent Appeal proceedings from
Rent Control Officer.
xviii. During pendency of the Objection Application
before the R.C.O., The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7676
of 2023 in this Court to seek stay to the possession warrant
during the pendency of his objection proceedings pending
before the R.C.O. The petitioner therein submitted that, to
seek immediate protection against the possession warrant, the
Writ Petition No.7676 of 2023 was filed. The said Writ
Petition came to be disposed of with directions to the Rent
Controller/Executing Court to decide petitioner’s application
within a period of four weeks therefrom allowing the parties
10
wp-11469-2024
to raise all contentions. It was meant to give opportunity of
hearing to the all stakeholders. Effect of order dated
21.04.2015 was stayed for four weeks only at the request of
the Petitioner. This stayed the possession notice/warrant
ultimately.
xix. Consequent to the order passed by this Court,
notices were issued by the R.C.O. to all the parties including
the petitioner, original tenant, official liquidator, the
Administrator C.I.D.C.O., etc. Its pertinent to note that during
the hearing, the Petitioner suppressed the fact that he has
already withdrawn the Rent Appeal proceedings filed before
the District Court. On the contrary it was pleaded there that
Rent Appeal proceedings are pending before the District
Court.
xx. The hearing conducted by the R.C.O. was
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in order to
facilitate an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, which in
his grievance, has not received to him prior to the passing of
order dated 21-04-2015 in the execution proceeding.
xxi. The Petitioner had nothing to produce before the
R.C.O. to support his case. The Tenant also did not come up to
strengthen Petitioner’s case.
11
wp-11469-2024
Petitioner’s own case was that he was given a
word by someone on behalf of the tenant company that the
tenant shall sell out the ‘subject-matter tenanted property’ to
him, and that therefore he himself inducted himself in the
‘subject-matter property’.
xxii. After hearing all the parties the R.C.O. observed
that the Petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. That,
the Petitioner did not produce anything to support his
contention. Whatever opportunity of hearing the Petitioner
wanted, that was awarded to him by the R.C.O. Relying upon
the case maintained by the Petitioner that his Rent Appeal
proceedings were pending before the District Court, the
R.C.O. obviously recorded that in such scenario the
efficacious remedy for the Petitioner was to prosecute the
Rent Appeal proceedings, and that the proceedings before the
R.C.O. won’t be maintainable.
xxiii. Resultantly, the Rent Control Officer @ District
Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar vide the impugned
order dated 30.08.2024 rejected petitioner’s application.
As against this, the petitioner is before this Court.
12
wp-11469-2024
4. At the instance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, I have heard them extensively. I have also cautiously
gone through the entire record produced by the parties in this
Writ Petition. It is pertinent to note that after filing of this
petition, once time was sought to carry out amendment in the
pleadings to incorporate the pleadings that ‘the Appeal
Proceedings filed by the petitioner in the District Court were
withdrawn’.
Thereafter, again adjournment was sought on
some other ground. The respondent no.3 raised a grievance
that due to pendency of the Writ Petition, the authorities were
not executing the possession warrant without there being no
preventive orders.
Vide order dated 07.01.2025, this Court clarified
that there was no interim relief in favour of the petitioner. As
such even today, there is no interim relief in the matter, yet
the possession warrant is not executed by the Authorities.
13
wp-11469-2024
5. SUBMISSIONS
5.1. Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the
petitioner candidly agrees that the petitioner has nothing on
record to show that the petitioner under any authority
occupied the subject matter property, except the bare words.
However, he reiterates that the Petitioner occupied the subject
matter property at the behest of respondent no.4. He submits
that somebody from Respondent No.4’s office has given a
word to the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 shall sell out
the subject matter property to him.
5.2. As a challenge to the impugned order, Mr.
Kulkarni would raise twofold argument i.e.
(i) If the Rent Control Officer was of the opinion that
the proceedings were not maintainable due to pendency of the
Rent Appeal proceedings, he ought not to have observed
anything on merit;
and;
(ii) If on merit observations are to be made,
Petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing
by the Rent Control Officer before passing the orders dated
21.04.2015, for which matter be again remanded back to the
Rent Control Officer.
14
wp-11469-2024
5.3. Mr. Kulkarni submits that if it is held that the
order dated 30.08.2024 is passed looking into merits of the
case, then the petitioner ought to have given an opportunity
before passing the order dated 21.04.2015 and to demonstrate
his merit. With these arguments, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned
advocate for the Petitioner prays to allow the Writ Petition
even on the principles of equity.
5.4. Mr. Mahesh R. Sonawane, learned Counsel for
the respondent no.3 submits that the present petition is
apparently nothing but an another attempt by the petitioner to
protract the proceedings with an ulterior motive to retain
illegal possession of the subject matter property. He would
point out that its not that the Petitioner was awaken only the
year 2023 (Writ Petition No.1699 of 2023). Mr. Sonawane
takes me to the reply affidavit wherein copies of the orders
passed by the learned 3 rd Civil Judge (S.D.) Aurangabad in
Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2018, are on record.
5.5. Referring to the orders passed in the suit (supra),
he would point out that the Petitioner was well aware of all
the proceedings right in the year 2018 itself, yet the Petitioner
suppressed this fact from all other courts and authorities.
15
wp-11469-2024
Mr. Sonawane, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No. 3 would demonstrate from the recitals of the
orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, that the Petitioner
merely kept pending even the hearing on Temporary
Injunction application for five years.
5.6. Mr. Sonawane advocates the findings recorded by
the Rent Control Officer passed vide the impugned order
dated 30.08.2024. He was at pains to submit that despite
there being no stay passed by this Court and as also the same
expressly having been observed by this Court, the petitioner
somehow has succeeded in retaining the illegal possession. He
submits that his client is a lawful lessee of the plot leased by
the C.I.D.C.O. and a lawful owner of the house constructed
thereon. He would submit that it is high time that this Court
must interfere and the respondent no.3 be handed over the
possession of subject matter property. He gives emphasize on
the point that the Petitioner has always made false statement
before the R.C.O. and the Courts including this court about
pendency of proceedings, and called for indulgence.
16
wp-11469-2024
He submits that conduct of the Petitioner must be
taken into consideration seriously. He places reliance on the
following judgments:
1. K. D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India LTD. & Ors ,
reported in 2008 (12) SCC 481, wherein it is held as under:
29. If the primary object as highlighted in
Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in
mind, an applicant who does not come with candid
facts and ‘clean breast cannot hold a writ of the
Court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or
concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It
is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or
misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable
and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does
not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly
but states them in a distorted manner and misleads
the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process
to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed
further with the examination of the case on merits.
If the Court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In
fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for
contempt of Court for abusing the process of the
Court.
2. Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, reported in
1994 AIR (SCW) 4994, wherein it is held as under:
1. The stream of administration of justice has to
remain unpolluted so that purity of court’s
atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of
17
wp-11469-2024the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of to
maintain the sublimity of court’s environment, so
also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to
the satisfaction of an concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects
the course of judicial proceeding; or if anything is
done with oblique motive, the same interferes with
the administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only to
them for the wrong done, but also to deter others
from indulging in similar acts shake the faith of
people in the system of administration of justice.
3. K. Jayaram & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development
Authority & Ors, reported in 2022 (12) SCC 815, wherein in
the headnote A, it is held as under:
(A) Petitioner approaching the writ court must
come with clean hands and put forward all facts
before the Court without concealing or suppressing
anything.
4. Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2010
(2) SCC 114, wherein it is held as under:
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two
basic values of life i.e., ‘Satya’ (truth) and ‘Ahimsa’
(non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain
these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an
integral part of justice delivery system which was
in vogue in pre-independence era and the people
used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
18
wp-11469-2024
independence period has seen drastic changes in
our value system. The materialism has over-
shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal
gain has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of
facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a
new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who
belong to this creed do not have any respect for
truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and
unethical means for achieving their goals. In order,
to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well established
that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream
of justice or who touches the pure fountain of
justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
relief, interim or final.
2. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558,
this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and
revoked the leave granted to the appellant by
making the following observations:
It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in
applications for special leave made under Article
136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to
make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue
and misleading. In dealing with applications for
special leave, the Court naturally takes statements
of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair
to betray the confidence of the Court by making
statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus,
if at the hearing of the appeal the Supreme Court is
satisfied that the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special leave are
19
wp-11469-2024inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is
entitled to contend that the appellant may have
obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on
the strength of what he characterizes as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the
petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may
come to the conclusion that in such a case special
leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked.
Placing reliance upon the observations cited
above, Mr. Sonawane, learned Counsel prays to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
6 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
6.1. The facts in the case are very clear. The Petitioner
was never a tenant nor a sub tenant in the ‘subject-matter
property’. It is also not his case that the Lessee has ever agreed
to transfer that property to him. A feeble attempt is made by
the petitioner to convince that he occupied the subject matter
property at the behest of respondent no.4 – tenant of the
Lessee. Petitioner’s bone of contention is that some official of
the Respondent No.4 tenant company agreed him to sell out
the ‘subject-matter property’, and hence he introduced himself
in it. Suffice to note there is nothing on record even to suggest
that the petitioner was authorized to occupy the premises by
the respondent no.4.
20
wp-11469-2024
6.2. One must not loose sight of the fact that the
‘subject-matter property’ is a leasehold property owned by the
C.I.D.C.O., a special town planning authority. Even a lawful
leaseholder/ Lessee also can not transfer the leasehold rights
without permission of the C.I.D.C.O. Petitioner tries to justify
his possession on the pretext that a word was given to him on
behalf of tenant that the tenanted premises shall be sold to
him by the tenant. Such an agreement absolutely doesn’t bear
any legal sanctity.
I do not comprehend with the Petitioner’s case
that the tenant could sell out the tenanted leasehold property
to him, and that possession under such oral agreement can be
lawfully protected. By no stretch of imagination such case
could be accepted. Such an agreement is not binding on the
Respondent No. 3 – the owner of house and the Lessor i.e. the
C.I.D.C.O. Pertinent to note, the Petitioner has never claimed
specific performance of contract against the Respondent No. 4.
He merely wants to retain his unlawful possession over the
‘subject matter property’, which can no more be permitted.
21
wp-11469-2024
6.3. What the Petitioner purportedly wanted to
putforth before the Rent Control Officer prior to the
Execution Order dated 21-04-2015, he had full opportunity to
produce such material before the same authority in the
hearing conducted by the Rent Control Officer pursuant to the
orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2023
and 7676 of 2023. However, the Petitioner except bare words
did not place anything on record to justify his possession and
the authority under which he inducted himself in the ‘subject-
matter property’.
6.4. Falling deficit to adduce ‘adequate evidence’ is
one thing and having absolutely ‘no evidence’ is another thing.
Hence on facts I find that before the Rent Control Officer even
after receiving full opportunity of hearing, as also before this
Court in the present proceeding the Petitioner has utterly
failed to prove that his possession in the ‘subject-matter
property’ was lawful to invoke the principles of equity. In any
case as observed supra, an agreement of whatsoever nature
i.e. oral or written, on behalf of tenant to sell out the tenanted
premises to a stranger is not at acceptable for any purpose,
nor protection can be granted to the possession under such
agreement.
22
wp-11469-2024
6.5. Now I deal with Petitioner’s first objection as
regards to findings of the Rent Control Officer that
Petitioner’s objection was not maintainable.
6.5.1. Its a matter of fact that the Petitioner himself
pleaded before the Rent Control Officer that his Rent Appeal
proceedings were pending before the District Court.
Obviously, the Rent Control Officer observed that the
appropriate remedy would be to prosecute the Rent Appeal
proceeding, and that the objection application won’t be
maintainable.
6.5.2. It is undisputed that, Petitioner’s Rent Appeal
proceedings were already withdrawn by the Petitioner on 28-
07-2023. Petitioner suppressed this vital information and
made utterly false statement before the Rent Control Officer
that the Rent Appeal proceedings were pending. By making it
a point that his Rent Appeal proceedings were in process, the
Petitioner sought to secure orders suppressing the factum of
withdrawal of the Rent Appeal Proceedings.
23
wp-11469-2024
However, by seeking amendment in the present
Writ Petition at paragraph No.10A and Grounds Nos. II-A and
II-B, the Petitioner attempted to overcome the factual
incorrect statement made before the Rent Control Officer as
also before this Court.
The amendment reads as follows:-
paragraph No. 10A:
“The Petitioner states and submits that on
23-06-2023, a purshis was filed before the learned
District Court in the pending appeal on behalf of
the present Petitioner and thereby permission was
sought for withdrawing the appeal in view of filing
of application for setting aside ex-parte order dated
21-04-2015. Hereto annexed and marked as
ANNEXURE G-1 is the copy of the pursis dated 23-
06-2023 filed on his behalf before the learned
District Court.
The Petitioner states and submits that the
learned District Court vide order dated 28-07-2023
permitted the Petitioner to withdraw his appeal.
Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE G-2 is
the copy of the order dated 28-07-2023 passed by
the District Court at Aurangabad in Civil
Misc.Application no.92 of 2023.”
24
wp-11469-2024
Grounds
ii-“A”. The Respondent No. 1 has held that the
proceedings for setting aside ex parte order are not
tenable in with of pendency of appeal before the
District Court It is however a matter of record that
the appeal before the learned District Court is
withdrawn vide order dated 28.07 2023 and hence
the proceedings for setting aside ex parte order are
required to be considered and decided on merits
ii-“B”. The Petitioner, due to his lack of legal
acumen could not point out the withdrawal of his
appeal either to the Respondent No 1 at the time of
hearing of the said proceedings nor could state the
same in the present Writ Petition It is only at the
time of hearing, he realised his omission and hence
the same is being brought on record without any
delay.”
6.5.3. Pertinent to note, the amendments were carried
out on 15-10-2024. Petitioner’s admission by way of
amendment and the factual position itself thwarts his first
objection. On one hand Petitioner argues that the Rent
Control Officer ought not to have rendered anything on facts
and merits because of pending Rent Appeal proceedings,
while on the other hand he submits that such proceedings
were no more live.
25
wp-11469-2024
The moment Petitioner says that the Rent Appeal
proceedings were already disposed of, the observation of Rent
Control Officer about maintainability of objection application
looses its implication. Simultaneously, petitioner’s grievance in
the Writ Petition too doesn’t survive. The R.C.O. recorded that
the objection application is not maintainable, because the
Petitioner expressly stated that the Rent Appeal proceedings
were pending.
6.5.4. Petitioner’s grievance is that since the R.C.O.
observed that the proceedings were not maintainable, and yet
observed that the Petitioner had no proof in support of his
claim, such observations adversely affect his merits before the
Court. This is an ludicrous objection. The Petitioner has
already withdrawn his Rent Appeal proceedings from the
District Court. Except the objection application pending before
the R.C.O., the Petitioner had no other proceedings pending in
any court challenging the eviction/execution proceedings or
to prosecute his any right. The fact of withdrawal of Rent
Appeal proceedings are introduced by the Petitioner in this
Writ Petition by way of subsequent amendment.
26
wp-11469-2024
Prior to that, a positive statement is made in the
Writ Petition that the Rent Appeal proceedings pending even
when the objection application was heard.
6.5.5. It necessitates me to observe that, even before
this court the Petitioner maintained the same strategy.
Present Writ Petition is filed on 08- 10-2024. Petitioner was
absolutely well aware that his Rent Appeal proceedings are
already withdrawn by him on 28-07- 2023. Yet in the Writ
Petition at paragraph No.10, the Petitioner made forthright
statement on oath that his Rent Proceedings were pending
before the District Court and hence the findings of the R.C.O.
were faulty. This is a cautious and adventurous pleading.
Notices were issued by this Court relying upon the pleadings
on oath in the Writ Petition. Subsequently to overcome this
false pleading, the amendment in paragraph No. 10A and
Ground No. ii-B (supra) is placed into service.
6.5.6. Conduct and case of the Petitioner is hit by the
foundation principle of ‘law on equity and fairness’ framed in
famous Latin Maxim “Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De
Injuria Sua Propria” i.e. no one can take advantage of his own
wrong.
27
wp-11469-2024
The Petitioner tried to justify the amendment on
account of ‘lack of legal acumen’. I do not accept that it was a
bonafide lapse or bonafide inadvertence on the part of the
Petitioner. Missing a pleading is one thing, and placing
positively a false fact on oath in the pleading is another. Both
do not stand on same footing when it comes to the bonafides
of the party making a positive incorrect pleading. I have no
doubt in my mind to observe that the statement at paragraph
No. 10 of the Writ Petition about pendency of Rent appeal
proceedings was a cautious one, and was averred to make this
court believe the same. The original pleading at paragraph No.
10 was profusely to show how the Rent Control Officer erred
in rendering findings despite Rent Appeal proceedings were
in force.
6.5.7. The sequence of the litigation raised by the
Petitioner, and the replacement of absolutely contrary
pleadings made in the Writ Petition in the manner as observed
supra, straightaway goes to show that Petitioner has never
appeared before the this Court and the Rent Control Officer
with clean hands.
28
wp-11469-2024
6.5.8. This reminds the pristine principle of law “Fraus
et jus nunquam cohabitant” elaborated by Lord Denning in
his judgment in the case of “Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley
1956 (1) QB 702”. Since then in different set of facts, still it
continues to guide how and why fraud and justice can not
dwell together. In the case in hand, the term ‘fraud’ refers to
Petitioner’s conduct as observed supra to frustrate a lawful
decree and directions issued by this Court. He cautiously made
positive averments of incorrect facts before R.C.O. and also
before this Court with an intent to secure gainful relief.
When the Authority turned down his application believing the
factually incorrect averments, the same is taken as ground in
the Writ Petition to challenge the order passed by the R.C.O.
Again by making a casual amendment in the Writ Petition,
entire plinth of the Writ Petition itself is sought to be changed.
This certainly is not a lack of legal acumen or bonafide
inadvertence, but its an advertent mischief played by the
Petitioner on the Court.
6.6 Now, as regards to the objection raised by Mr. Mukul
Kulkarni, learned advocate for the Petitioner on ‘an
opportunity of hearing’ I record my findings as follows:-
29
wp-11469-2024
6.6.1. Petitioner firstly filed Writ Petition No. 1699 of
2023, which was withdrawn by him with leave to file
appropriate proceedings to challenge the execution warrant.
6.6.2. Petitioner lodged his objection application before
the Rent Control Officer with prayer to recall the order dated
21.04.2015 and the possession notice/warrant.
6.6.3. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7676 of 2023
seeking stay to the possession notice/warrant during
pendency of his Objection application before the Rent Control
Officer. This Court initially stayed handover of possession.
After hearing the parties, on 06.11.2023 this Court directed
the Rent Control Officer to give a hearing to the Petitioner and
all the stakeholders, and then to pass appropriate orders. Stay
to the possession notice/warrant was granted for a further
period of 4 weeks only.
6.6.4. Rent Control Officer issued notices to all
stakeholders, heard fully the Petitioner, and rejected
Petitioner’s objection application on 30.08.2024.
30
wp-11469-2024
6.6.5. The hearing before the Rent Control Officer
concluded by the impugned order of 30.08.2024 was
conducted pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the
Writ Petition No.7676 of 2023 and directions at paragraph
No. 5 which reads thus:
“5. In view of the submissions made above, I
deem it appropriate to direct the Rent
Controller/Executing Court to decide the
proceedings at page Nos. 54 and 67 of this
petition within a period of four weeks. Interim stay
is granted to the impugned order passed by the
Rent Controller for the period of four weeks. The
writ petition is disposed of accordingly. All civil
applications are disposed of. All points/
contentions are kept open.”
6.6.6. Disposal of the Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2023
and No. 7676 of 2023 relegated all the parties back to the
Rent Control Officer with directions to the authority to give
an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders and then to
pass an appropriate order.
6.6.7. Accordingly in the subsequent hearing, the Rent
Control Officer has given opportunity of fresh hearing to all
the concerned, particularly the petitioner. Its an admitted fact
that the Petitioner has nothing to support his case before the
Rent Control Officer.
31
wp-11469-2024
This is what the Rent Control Officer observed.
Thereafter the impugned order is passed. Today also the
Petitioner has nothing to substantiate his case, except his bare
words, which, are in respect of such agreement that can never
be accepted for any purpose. Under these circumstances, it
would be an derisory prayer of the petitioner that still he be
given an opportunity of hearing. His grievance that he was not
heard before passing the order dated 21.04.2015 has stood
redressed.
Hence I hold that Petitioner’s 2nd and last
objection also does not hold any water.
6.7. I have gone through the orders passed by the
learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 2018. It
seems that the suit was predominantly for a plot No. 13
adjoining to the ‘subject-matter property’ that too was also
leased by the C.I.D.C.O. to the present Lessee. The petitioner
contended in the said suit that officer of the tenant company
had orally agreed to sell out the suit property and the present
‘subject-matter property’ in favor of the Petitioner. The said
suit is subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution.
32
wp-11469-2024
It shows that the Petitioner has kept properties
including ‘subject-matter property’ lingering in the litigation.
This obviously show that the Petitioner was well aware of the
eviction proceedings even in the year 2018, unlike the cause
of action shown to have arisen in 2023.
6.8. The fight and plight of the lessee has begun right
in 1992. In the meantime, the lessee died. His daughter
stepped into the shoes of her father. Present respondent no.3
purchased the lease hold rights from the lessee with approval
of the C.I.D.C.O. by paying a valuable consideration. However,
till today the fruits of the eviction which has started since
06.10.1992 are not received by the beneficiary/decree holder.
6.9. The worrying part of the case is that there is no
preventive order passed by any Court since after order dated
06-11-2023 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 7676 of
2023. Stay to the execution notice was only for a period of 4
weeks w.e.f. 06-11-2023. This court clarified on 07-01-2025
that there is no stay to the execution. Original order of
eviction is passed by this Court on 09-12-2011 in the Civil
Revision Application No. 781 of 2000.
33
wp-11469-2024
Still the possession warrant is not executed by the
Circle Officer Aurangabad for the reasons best known to him.
This Court won’t anymore act as a mute spectator to see how
execution of the orders passed by it remain pending for
indefinite period at the whims and pleasure of the executing
authorities.
6.10. A decree on papers is of no use. We are well
guided by the definitive legal maxim Executio Est Finis Et
Fructus Legis. The literal meaning of the Latin maxim is that
‘Execution is the end and fruit of the law’. Until a decree is
executed, the verdict merely remains a decision without any
fruit of the justice to the decree holder. If the directions and
orders passed by the Courts and the Authorities under Law are
not effectively and timely implemented, the justice
pronounced shall remain only a portrayed lantern. Frivolous
litigation and disregard of the executives to execute the court
orders discourage the decree holder. To create and continue
faith in justice, it must be seen to have been done. In my view
in the cases like the present one, justice is done when the
decree/order under law is seen executed.
34
wp-11469-2024
6.11. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of
Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh @ Another reported at (2013) 9
SCC 491, has observed that a execution and implementation
of a decree must not be delayed. Non execution of a decree
timely and the delay caused in execution deprives a decree
holder of the fruits of his fight for justice.
6.12. The facts recorded above clearly show that the
proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner are not
bonafide. Besides the locus of the Petitioner to file those
proceedings, it has abundantly come on record that the
Petitioner always expressly made false statements on oath
before this Court and also pleadings before the R.C.O. He
secured orders from this court including stay too, on the basis
of those false statements. Subsequently under the garb of
amendment, took summersault to his contentions and created
pandemonium in the matters. The conduct of the Petitioner of
making false pleading in order to secure favorable orders from
the court is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law.
Mere earning leave to amend pleadings does not ipso facto
immune a party from the risk and liability incurred by
earlier pleadings.
35
wp-11469-2024
6.13. I have even offered an opportunity of hearing to
the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of costs, and
have heard them accordingly. While Mr. Mahesh R.
Sonawane, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 pressed
for heavy exemplary cost, Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, learned
Counsel for the petitioner sought to justify that the
circumstances did not warrant imposition of cost on the
petitioner.
Hence, I am of the considered view that the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs in view
of the conduct of the petitioner as recorded above.
7. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
ii. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad shall execute
the possession warrant dated 07.02.2023 without
any default and excuse, and shall hand over
possession of the ‘subject-matter property’ to the
respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from
today. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad to file
compliance report in this Court within Five weeks
from today. The Petitioner shall peacefully vacate
the ‘subject- matter property’ in the possession
handover process.
36
wp-11469-2024
iii. In the circumstances, costs of Rs.25,000/- is
saddled on the petitioner. Amount of costs be
deposited in this Court within a period of four
weeks from today.
iv. Upon such deposit, the respondent no.3 is
permitted to withdraw the same.
v. It is clarified that the Circle Officer,
Aurangabad shall execute the possession warrant in
terms of operative clause (ii) of this order
irrespective of whether the petitioner deposits the
costs within the given time or not.
vi. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly.
vii. Rule stands discharged.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
