Shri Arun Vishram Bodade v. Shri Madhukar Shivram Malwankar

2026:BHC-AS:12039 Rutuja 8-CRA-171-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2026 Shri Arun Vishram Bodade ...Applicant V/s.

Shri Madhukar Shivram Malwankar

...Respondent

________________ Ms.Latika Chitre with Mr. Rohan Deshmukh & Ms. Pragati A Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Sumedh S Modak Advocate for Respondent.

________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED: 10 March, 2026.

P.C.:

1) The Revision Application is preferred against concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court on the issue of nonuser. Perusal of findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court would indicate that both the Courts have taken note of specific admissions given by the Applicant/Defendant during the course of cross-examination that the suit premises were kept locked and that there was no electric connection and that the premises were in a completely damaged condition.

2) The learned counsel for the Applicant/Defendant has invited my attention to copies of various electricity bills to prove the consumption of electricity in the suit premises. However, the bills pertain to the period Page No.

1 of 10 March 2026

Rutuja 8-CRA-171-2026 after January 2018, which are totally irrelevant. The suit was instituted on 17 March 2015 and therefore, the relevant period for deciding the issue of non-user under Provisions of Section 16(1)(n) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is six months prior to the date of the institution of the suit. The Applicant/Defendant has given express admissions during the course of his cross-examination that the suit premises were kept locked and there was no electricity connection in respect of the suit premises. Non-user is thus concurrently held to be proved by the Trial and the appellate Court. Both the Courts have not committed any jurisdictional error for this Court to interfere in revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3) At this stage, Mr.

Modak, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-landlord invites attention of the Court to the Bailiff Report dated 17 December 2025 which indicates that the decree has already been executed and possession of the suit premises are already taken away from the Applicant/Defendant. In view of the above, it is not necessary to entertain the present Revision Application. 4) Civil Revision Application is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Signed by: Rutuja Rajennndra Borse Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/03/2026 11:26:41 Page No.

2 of 10 March 2026