Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 12 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: State Bank of India (SBI) – statutory corporation, corporate office at Nariman Point, Mumbai.
  • Respondent: Amum Builders – partnership firm, office at Vile Parle (West), Mumbai.
  • The dispute originates from a lease dated 24 January 1964 executed by the original owner Francis Manuel Gonsalves in favour of Suleman Dadi and others for a term of 97 years, expiring on 23 January 2061.
  • The lease was sub‑leased on 27 May 1966 to M/s. Dadi Builders, later portions of the land were transferred to Fairdeal Development Corporation, which on 22 May 1975 assigned the remaining portion (the "Suit Premises") to SBI via an unregistered agreement.
  • SBI constructed quarters on the Suit Premises and paid rent to the original owner’s heir, Ignatious Gonsalves, until the conveyance deed dated 28 June 2005 transferred the property to Amum Builders.
  • After verification of the conveyance deed, SBI began paying rent to Amum Builders. Amum Builders served notice on 24 August 2007 demanding rent and a notice to quit on 23 October 2007, demanding vacant possession and removal of the structure.
  • SBI (the Applicants) contested the notice, arguing that the lease was subsisting, that they were protected tenants for the residuary term, and that the head lessee (Suleman Dadi & ors) was not joined as a necessary party.
  • The Small Causes Court (Trial Court) dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, noting lack of privity between the plaintiff and SBI and the necessity of the head lessee’s presence.
  • The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff had properly described the suit premises, had validly terminated tenancy, and was entitled to possession and arrears of rent (Rs 11,684 at Rs 402.90 per month for 01‑07‑2005 to 30‑11‑2007) with 6% per annum interest, and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.
  • SBI filed a Civil Revision Application (Revision No. 98 of 2021) challenging the appellate order, contending lack of ownership by Amum Builders, improper notice, incorrect area (dispute between 1,553 sq. yards vs. 3,502 sq. yards), and non‑joinder of the head lessee.
  • Counsel for Amum Builders argued that the plaintiff was the landlord of the 1,553 sq. yard plot, that the tenancy was not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and that rent and mesne profit demands were justified.
  • The Court examined provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly implied surrender, and concluded that SBI’s payment of rent directly to the original owner and subsequent acceptance by Amum Builders amounted to an implied surrender of the head lessee’s rights, rendering SBI a month‑to‑month tenant whose lease could be terminated.
  • The Court held that the appellate order directing eviction and payment of arrears was legally sound and could not be interfered with.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Application is dismissed; the appellate order stands.
  • SBI (Applicants) must deliver vacant possession of the Suit Premises within four months.
  • SBI must pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs 11,684 calculated at Rs 402.90 per month for the period 01‑07‑2005 to 30‑11‑2007, with interest at 6% per annum.
  • An enquiry into past and future mesne profits is ordered under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.
  • The interim compensation directed by the Appellate Court may continue, and the judgment is stayed for 12 weeks to allow SBI to file a surrender undertaking within two weeks.

Topics: Eviction, Lease Dispute