Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed Chamber Summons No.159 of 2018 filed by Auto Credit Corporation and Rekha Prakash Jain in a testamentary suit, holding that tenants or occupants have no locus standi in probate proceedings. The Court found that the applicants had tampered with premises sealed by the Court-appointed Administrator, delayed adjudication by failing to comply with directions, and misused the judicial process. It directed them to pay ₹25,00,000 as exemplary costs to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks, failing which the Collector of Mumbai was directed to attach their properties for recovery. The Court also issued a suo motu show cause notice for contempt to Rekha Prakash Jain.
Facts
- The applicants claimed tenancy rights over a garage/shop on the ground floor of Roshni Building, Charni Road, Mumbai.
- Earlier, in 2018, their prayer for impleadment was rejected on the ground that persons without caveatable interest had no locus before a probate court. In 2020, they were directed to take steps for tagging a related CRA, but failed to do so.
- The applicants argued they had been lawful tenants since 1991, paying rent, and even attempted to tender rent of ₹2.94 lakh by banker’s cheque in 2017. They alleged that the Administrator wrongfully sealed the premises in July 2018 without notice.
- The Administrator countered that applicants were mere occupants, not accepted as tenants by the landlady, and had produced no documentary proof. Reports revealed that despite sealing, the premises were unlawfully opened and materials placed inside.
- A Court Commissioner’s report in January 2019 confirmed tampering with seals and rear doors of the premises.
Issues
- Whether the applicants had any locus standi in a testamentary suit as alleged tenants.
- Whether the Administrator acted within his powers in sealing the premises.
- Whether the applicants tampered with sealed premises and misused the judicial process.
- What costs and directions should be imposed.
Petitioner’s (Applicants’) Arguments
- They were tenants since 1991 under the original landlady and continued to pay rent.
- Rent tendered to the Administrator was wrongfully refused.
- Sealing of premises was beyond the Administrator’s authority, who was only empowered to collect rent.
- They sought removal of the seal and restoration of possession.
Respondent’s (Administrator’s) Arguments
- Applicants were mere occupants without recognized tenancy rights, since the landlady never accepted them as tenants.
- Rent had been paid only until 2008, and subsequent tender was irregular.
- Reports revealed tampering of sealed premises and unauthorized use by third parties (Speed Labs, later Home Studio).
- Applicants failed to establish authority or proper locus in the matter.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court reiterated that tenancy claims must be adjudicated exclusively by the Small Causes Court, not in testamentary jurisdiction.
- Auto Credit Corporation could at best be treated as an occupant, not a tenant, and thus had no right to assign or create third-party rights.
- Administrator’s and Commissioner’s reports established tampering with sealed premises, amounting to contempt.
- Courts are duty-bound to deter misuse of process and frivolous litigation, as emphasized in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496.
Precedent Analysis
- Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496 – Courts must impose exemplary costs to prevent misuse of process.
- Earlier High Court orders (2018, 2020) had already clarified applicants’ lack of locus and directed procedural compliance, which they ignored.
Court’s Reasoning
- Applicants, being mere occupants, had no locus in probate proceedings.
- They failed to establish tenancy rights and disobeyed prior court directions.
- Their actions caused delay in adjudication and hardship to the Administrator.
- Tampering with sealed premises was established, warranting contempt proceedings.
- Exemplary costs were necessary to deter such conduct and prevent misuse of the judicial process.
Conclusion
- Chamber Summons dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹25,00,000 payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks.
- Collector, Mumbai, directed to attach applicants’ properties if costs unpaid.
- Registry directed to issue show cause notice to Rekha Prakash Jain for contempt.
- Matter listed for compliance on 12 November 2025.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that probate courts cannot entertain tenancy disputes and that such claims must be decided by the Small Causes Court. It underscores the judiciary’s intolerance of frivolous litigation, forum misuse, and contemptuous conduct such as tampering with sealed premises. The judgment also highlights the Court’s willingness to impose exemplary costs to protect judicial time and integrity.