Thane: The Thane session’s court presided by Principal District Judge S B. Agarwal, has dismissed an appeal filed by 90-year-old Altamount Road based businessman, Bahalchand Aridamanlal Jain, who had pleaded the court to obstruct the execution of an eviction decree in connection to several decades-old property dispute involving a prime plot in Panchpakhadi, Thane.
The case revolves around land measuring 1300 square yards, originally leased by the Thakker family to M/s Property Builders in 1967. The dispute traces back to 1974, when Jain claimed to have acquired leasehold rights to the land through an agreement with M/s Property Builders.
However, in 1980, the Pilani family represented by several legal heirs one of which being Ramakant Shankarmal Pilani, former Director and CEO of M/s Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. and M/s GBL Chemical Ltd, who was arrested by the Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi police in February, 2025, for allegedly defrauding multiple Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) of over Rs 20 crore using forged documents.
The Pilani’s had entered into a tripartite agreement to take over the leasehold rights, allegedly with Jain’s consent, in exchange for a payment of Rs 2.1 lakh. As per Jain, the dispute arose when the Pilani family allegedly had never paid him the agreed amount, leaving his rights in limbo.
Over the years, the Thakker family initiated legal proceedings after lease payments had allegedly ceased, ultimately securing an eviction decree against the Pilani family. Jain thus had filed an obstructionist petition, arguing that the decree could not be enforced against him, as he held leasehold rights.
However, the court found that Jain failed to produce crucial documents, including the original 1974 agreement under which he claimed rights. The court also noted that Jain had never paid rent directly to the Thakker family, nor had he established any formal tenancy. Further, Jain’s claim that he should have been made a party to the original eviction suit was rejected.
“There was absolutely no justification made out by the appellant for obstructing to the execution of the decree. The contention of the appellant(Jain) that he was a necessary party to the suit is also totally frivolous. If at all he has any claim to make against the Pilani family, that is an independent question between the appellant and the said Pilani family,” read the order copy.
