Rs. 50k Cost Imposed For Quoting non existent case law with AI: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has set aside a 2009 revisional order that had stalled the eviction of a licensee from a residential flat in Jogeshwari, restoring the eviction decree passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondent company for abusing the judicial process and wasting court time. The bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye held that the Revisional Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act) had acted perversely by selectively reading clauses of a registered leave and licence agreement and venturing into issues completely outside its statutory jurisdiction. The petitioner, a Mumbai-based film director and producer, had licensed his residential flat to the respondent company through a registered leave and licence agreement dated January 5, 2007, for a period of 22 months. After alleging breach of licence conditions, the petitioner terminated the agreement in May 2008 and initiated eviction proceedings under Section 24 of the MRC Act. While the Competent Authority ordered eviction in April 2009, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, overturned that order in revision, holding that the premises were used for commercial purposes and that the respondent had a lien over the flat arising from a separate film production contract. The High Court found that the Revisional Authority had cherry-picked clauses referring to “residence-cum-office” use, while completely ignoring multiple clauses that expressly restricted the premises to residential use only. Justice Sathaye observed that a holistic reading of the registered licence agreement left no doubt that the dominant purpose of the licence was residential. Merely because the licensee allegedly used the flat commercially could not alter the legal character of the licence, particularly in light of Section 30 of the MRC Act, which bars conversion of residential premises for commercial use. The Court strongly criticised the Revisional Authority for relying on a film production contract and an arbitral award to hold that the respondent had a charge or lien over the flat. “The question of alleged monetary claims under a film production contract is wholly alien to proceedings under Sections 24 and 44 of the MRC Act,” the Court held, clarifying that issues of title, lien, or contractual recovery cannot be examined in summary eviction proceedings. Notably, the arbitral award relied upon by the Revisional Authority had already been set aside by the High Court in 2011, a fact ignored in the impugned order. The Court also rejected reliance on electricity bills and photographs allegedly showing commercial fixtures, reiterating that such documents may at best prove occupation, but not the authority or purpose under which possession was granted. In unusually candid observations, the High Court pulled up the respondent’s director, who appeared in person, for repeatedly seeking adjournments and consuming judicial time across three different benches. The Court further noted that the written submissions filed by the respondent bore clear indicators of being generated using an AI tool, including references to a non-existent judgment. While acknowledging that AI tools may assist legal research, the Court warned that unverified, machine-generated material cannot be dumped on courts. “This is not assistance to the Court; this is a hurdle in the swift delivery of justice,” the judgment stated, cautioning that such practices may attract stricter consequences in future Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the 2009 revisional order, restored the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority, directed immediate handover of possession to the petitioner, and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent, payable to the High Court Employees Medical Fund. The eviction order has been made executable forthwith. Case Details Case Title: Mr. Deepak Versus Heart & Soul Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8390 Of 2009 Date: 7th January, 2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Janay Jain Counsel For Respondent: Mohammed Yasin Click Here To Read Order Read More: Faceless Appeal Authority Can’t Avoid Merits by Citing Lack of Facts: ITAT

Membership Required