Bombay HC Allows Tenant to Produce Additional Documents in Eviction Appeal, Carves Out Commercial Properties From Bona Fide Requirement Inquiry

Justice Rajesh S. Patil disposed of a seven-year-old writ petition, permitting a tenant to produce residential property documents before the Small Causes Court appellate bench while excluding landlord-owned commercial premises from bona fide requirement consideration.

A writ petition filed in 2019 by a tenant who had already lost an eviction decree before the Trial Court came to a close on 21 July 2026, when Justice Rajesh S. Patil, sitting singly at the Bombay High Court, disposed of the matter with a set of specific directions to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra. The tenant, Maheshkumar B. Patel, had challenged an order dated 19 June 2018 passed in Appeal No. 8 of 2014, by which the Appellate Court had rejected his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to produce additional documents. Those documents were intended to show that the landlord held sufficient properties such that his claimed residential need could have been satisfied from existing resources. The High Court, while partially vindicating the tenant, drew a firm line between residential and commercial properties in the landlord's portfolio.

Tenant's Attempt to Introduce Additional Evidence After Eviction Decree

The landlord had filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of residential premises. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord. While Appeal No. 8 of 2014 was pending before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra, the tenant filed an application — marked as Ex.40 — under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to place before the Appellate Court certain documents said to demonstrate that the landlord already owned or possessed enough residential properties to meet his need.

The Appellate Court rejected that application on 19 June 2018. The tenant then approached the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2019. That petition remained pending for admission for more than seven years before being taken up for disposal.

The Central Legal Question: Scope of Bona Fide Requirement Inquiry

At the heart of the matter was whether the Appellate Court, hearing an eviction appeal grounded in bona fide residential requirement, should examine the full sweep of a landlord's property holdings — including commercial premises — when deciding whether the claimed need is genuine. The tenant's case was that the landlord owned 27 properties in total, a list of which appeared at page 49 of the record.

Out of those 27 properties, serial numbers 11 to 18, 26, and 27 were commercial in nature. Justice Patil held that because the eviction suit was founded on the ground of bona fide requirement of residential premises, commercial properties could have no bearing on the inquiry. The Rent Court, he directed, would not consider those commercial premises.

How the Bench Resolved the Impasse

Rather than simply restoring or dismissing the application, Justice Patil disposed of the writ petition with detailed operational directions. The landlord, by consent, agreed to permit the production of documents relating to residential properties as additional evidence before the Appellate Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party. The court recorded that this concession was made in recognition of the fact that the tenant's writ petition had “remained pending for admission for more than seven years.”

The Appellate Court was directed to consider the documents listed at pages 49 and 50 of the record, excluding items 11 to 18, 26, and 27, which were the commercial properties. Once those documents are produced, the landlord retains the right to challenge their veracity by counter-documents or oral evidence. Where the landlord disputes any document from the list, the tenant will be required to prove it in accordance with the procedure under Order 41 Rule 27.

Justice Patil fixed 30 September 2026 as the deadline by which this entire exercise of document production, challenge, and proof must be completed. He noted that this amounted to a period of approximately two months and ten days and directed both parties not to seek unnecessary adjournments so as to enable the Appellate Bench to work within that window. The Appellate Court was further directed to make its best effort to dispose of the appeal, after hearing all parties, by the end of December 2026.

Both parties were also directed to file written submissions as soon as the appeal is taken up for final hearing. The written submissions must include copies of judgments relied upon, complete with index and relevant paragraph numbers, along with the propositions of law being advanced.

A Side Dispute Over Advocate Conduct Rules

An incidental issue arose during the proceedings concerning Bar Council of India conduct rules. The advocate appearing for Respondent No. 4 placed before the court Appendix G of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, specifically Rule 6 under Section I (Duty to the Court). That rule bars an advocate from appearing before any court, tribunal, or authority if a sole or any member thereof is related to the advocate in specified family relationships.

The petitioner's counsel, Adv. R. R. Tiwari, read Rule 6 as compelling an advocate not to appear for any of his or her family members in any proceeding. Justice Patil rejected that reading. On a plain reading, the rule bars an advocate from appearing before a court or tribunal of which his or her relative is a member — it does not restrict an advocate from appearing on behalf of a family member. The court held that “the objections raised by Mr.Tiwari stands rejected.”

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2019 was disposed of on 21 July 2026 with the following directions in summary:

• Documents relating to residential premises listed at pages 49 and 50 of the record (excluding items 11 to 18, 26, and 27, which are commercial properties) are permitted to be produced as additional evidence before the Appellate Court, by consent and without prejudice to both sides.
• After production, the landlord may challenge the documents by counter-evidence or oral evidence; the tenant must then prove any disputed document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
• The entire exercise to be completed by 30 September 2026.
• Appeal No. 8 of 2014 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra is expedited, with directions for disposal by end of December 2026.
• Both parties to file written submissions, with judgments indexed and paragraph-referenced, once the appeal is listed for final hearing.
• Both parties may produce an authenticated copy of the High Court's order before the Appellate Bench at Bandra.
• The objection regarding Bar Council of India's Rule 6 of Standards of Professional Conduct was rejected.