Bombay High Court Dismisses Intervention Application in Testamentary Suit Against Sealing of Premises. Occupant Claiming Tenancy Lacks Locus in Probate Proceedings and Must Approach Small Causes Court for Tenancy Rights.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a Chamber Summons in Testamentary Suit No.94 of 2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction. The applicants, Auto Credit Corporation and Rekha Praskash Jain, sought leave to intervene in the testamentary suit and a direction to the Court-appointed Administrator Ketan Trivedi to remove a seal affixed on a garage/shop on the ground floor of Roshni building, Mumbai. The underlying testamentary suit concerned the estate of deceased landlady Madhavi Dhirajlal Sagar, whose properties included the premises in question. The applicant claimed to be a lawful tenant of the premises, first under Madhavi Dhirajlal Sagar and later under Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi, who asserted ownership. Two RAE suits filed by the landlady for recovery of possession had been dismissed, and appeals against dismissal were dismissed on 30 November 2011. The applicant had filed Civil Revision Application Nos.456 of 2013 and 882 of 2012, which were pending but without stay. The applicant alleged continuous possession since 1991 and payment of rent until disposal of the suits. On 20 July 2017, she tendered Rs.2,94,127.70 by banker's cheque to the Administrator, which was refused. On 23 July 2018, the Administrator sealed the premises, allegedly without authority, as the Administrator was only authorised to collect rent. The applicant sought removal of the seal and permission to re-occupy. The Administrator contended that the premises were always locked, rent had been deposited only until April 2008, and the applicant had not produced documentary proof of tenancy or authority to represent Auto Credit Corporation. He relied on the fact that no probate or letters of administration had been granted to Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi, and that the deed of assignment of 1991 was inter se between partners and not accepted by the landlady. He submitted that sealing was protective. A Court Commissioner's report dated 28 January 2019 recorded that sealed premises were tampered with from the rear and materials were placed inside without permission. The main legal issues were whether a person claiming tenancy rights has locus to intervene in a testamentary suit, whether the applicant was a tenant or merely an occupant, and whether the Administrator's sealing was valid. The court analysed the prior orders of 11 September 2018 and 15 January 2020, noting that the first prayer for intervention had already been rejected and the applicant had not complied with tagging directions. The court held that tenants cannot be impleaded in a testamentary suit and that tenancy claims must be adjudicated by the Small Causes Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction. It found that Auto Credit Corporation was at best an occupant with no right to assign or create third-party rights. The court accepted the Administrator's and Commissioner's reports evidencing tampering with the sealed premises and concluded that the Chamber Summons was wholly misconceived. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Chamber Summons and refused to direct removal of the seal. It further directed the Registry to issue suo motu show cause notice to Rekha Prakash Jain returnable on 12 November 2025 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for tampering with sealed premises.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Chamber Summons was dismissed as wholly misconceived. The Court held that tenants cannot be impleaded in a Testamentary Suit and tenancy claims must be established before the Small Causes Court. The Court directed the Registry to issue suo motu show cause notice to Rekha Prakash Jain returnable on 12 November 2025 for contempt proceedings regarding tampering with sealed premises.

Law Points