In a long-standing legal battle, Shiv Kumar Agarwal sought to remove the heirs of Deepak Mathur from a Mumbai apartment. The court finally ruled in favor of Agarwal, focusing on issues of expired agreements and renter rights.
Shiv Kumar Agarwal filed a request challenging a previous court decision that dismissed his eviction case. The apartment in question was originally allowed to be used by Dayal Swaroop Mathur in 1971. The agreement ended in 1972, but Mathur's family continued living there.
Agarwal argued that the Mathurs were staying without permission after the agreement ended. The Mathur family, however, claimed they were renters, protected under the Bombay Rent Act. They said the original agreement was just for show, implying they were meant to be renters.
"The agreement was just for show... the deal was to create a rental situation."
Initially, the Small Causes Court ruled in Agarwal's favor, but the Appellate Bench dismissed the eviction case. They considered the Mathurs protected renters, mentioning the delay in filing the eviction case as a timing issue.
Judge M.M. Sathaye found the Appellate Bench's decision wrong. The Mathur family failed to prove they had ongoing permission or a rental agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement ended, and there was no proof of its renewal.
"The Defendants are staying without permission... the case filed by the Petitioner is not too late."
The High Court ruled in favor of Agarwal, ordering the Mathur heirs to leave the apartment within six weeks. The court confirmed the original eviction order, dismissing the Mathur family's claims of being renters.
The High Court decided that Shiv Kumar Agarwal was right, and the Mathur family had to vacate the apartment. The court found that the Mathurs did not have a valid rental agreement after the original one expired.
