Here's a story about a legal battle over a small shop in Pune, where the court decided that the Bank of India could remove the tenants. It’s a tale of old agreements, legal twists, and a fight over who gets to stay.
The shop in question is located in Sadashiv Peth, Pune. Originally, it was rented out to Shri. Dattatray Baburao Doiphode by the Bank of Karad. The bank wanted to remove him for not paying rent and for wanting to demolish the building. Although they won in court in 1972, they never followed through on the removal.
Vishwas Krishnarao Gangurde claimed he got the rights to rent the shop from Dattatray Baburao Doiphode in 1992. But when the Bank of Karad merged with the Bank of India in 1994, the bank didn’t recognize this transfer. Fast forward to 2019, the Bank of India wanted the shop back for its own use and claimed rent hadn’t been paid for years.
"You are staying in the premises, despite a court order against you," stated the notice from the bank.
Gangurde’s legal team argued that the removal notice was unclear and that he was a protected renter. They said the bank couldn't remove him without proper notice. However, the court didn’t agree, noting that no rent had been paid since 1972.
On February 26, 2026, Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled against Gangurde. The court found that he wasn’t the original renter and had let someone else use the shop without permission. Plus, the shop was now being used by someone else entirely.
"The owner of the premises must get the property back at some point," the judgment emphasized.
This case shows how important it is to have clear agreements and to follow through on legal responsibilities. For the Bank of India, it means getting back property they’ve owned for decades. For Gangurde’s family, it’s a reminder of the complexities involved in property disputes.
In the end, the court decided that the shop should go back to the bank, closing a long chapter in this legal saga.
