The Bombay High Court has observed that if a tenanted premises is demolished while an eviction suit is still pending, it does not end the tenancy. Nor does it defeat the landlord’s bona fide requirement under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA).

A single-judge bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye was hearing a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The application was filed by the landlord challenging the Appellate court’s judgment, which had set aside the eviction decree earlier granted by the Trial court.

The Court observed that a tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on a piece of land. Both the land and the building together form the subject matter of the tenancy. Therefore, merely demolishing the building does not make the eviction proceedings meaningless or ineffective.

Case Background:

The landlord had filed a suit seeking eviction of the tenant (Respondent) from the ground floor premises on two grounds under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRCA) — bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) and non-user under Section 16(1)(n).

While the Appeal was pending, the building, including the suit premises, was demolished following a municipal notice because it had become dangerous. The Appellate Court then set aside the eviction decree granted by the Trial Court. It held that since the premises had been demolished, the ground of bona fide requirement no longer survived, and the plea of non-user could not be maintained.

High Court’s Ruling on Tenancy Rights:

However, the Court affirmed that tenancy is created in respect of a building standing on land and clarified:

“… once the tenancy is created in respect of the premises in the building standing on the land, it is 'the building and the land' which are both components of the subject matter of demise and destruction of the building alone does not determine the tenancy when the land, which is the site of the building continues to exist,”

Bona Fide Requirement: Relevant Date Explained

On the issue of bona fide requirement, the Court observed that the relevant date for deciding the landlord’s need is the date on which the suit is filed. Later developments could be considered but only if they completely wiped out or ended the landlord’s need . The Court clarified that merely demolishing the structure did not automatically defeat the landlord’s claim.

The Bench observed-

“… despite demolition of the suit premises, the tenancy right subsists, the requirement as pleaded on the date of suit will have to be considered and therefore, since on the date of filing of suit, the suit premises existed, though in a deliberated condition, the requirement cannot be disbelieved.”

Court’s order:

Observing that the Appellate Court had misread pleadings and evidence, the bench held that its approach amounted to a perverse appreciation of the material on record and resulted in grave prejudice of justice.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application was partly allowed.

The judgement dated 12/09/2024 was quashed and set aside, and the decree of eviction dated 03/07/2018 was restored on the grounds of bona fide requirement and non user.

Case Details: Ajitnath Tatyasaheb Shetti and Anr vs M/S Govindram Shobharam and Company (Civil Revision Application No. 4 of 2025)