Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Baitulla Ismail Shaikh & Anr. vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 71Decided 30 Jan 2024
Not available
Justice Aniruddha Bose · Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Background

The appellants (landlords) sought to evict two tenants from portions of an old building in Mahabaleshwar, Maharashtra, partly on the ground that a municipal notice had declared part of the building structurally dangerous and required demolition. The trial court and first appellate court decreed eviction in the landlords' favour, but a Bombay High Court judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside the eviction decrees, holding the necessary conditions for eviction on the demolition ground had not been properly established.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined Section 16(1)(k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, distinguishing it from a related provision (Section 16(1)(i)) that requires a lesser degree of urgency. It held that while a court trying an eviction suit on the "demolition needed" ground has only a limited role in second-guessing a municipal authority's technical assessment, it does not have to mechanically rubber-stamp that assessment. It must still verify there is a genuine and immediate need for demolition. Reviewing the facts, the Court found the Revisional Court had correctly identified a mismatch between the evidence and the strict legal requirements for eviction on this ground, and it declined to interfere, dismissing both appeals.

Lesson Learnt

A landlord seeking eviction on the ground that a building must be demolished cannot rely solely on a municipal demolition notice. Courts will independently verify that the statutory conditions of genuine urgency and necessity are actually met before ordering a tenant's eviction.

Baitulla Ismail Shaikh & Anr. vs. Khatija Ismail Panhalkar & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware