Pancholi's face eviction

Actor Aditya Pancholi and his family have lost tenancy rights to the Juhu bungalow which they've rented since 1960, at Rs 150 a month. The Bombay High Court rejected all contentions raised on the Pancholis' behalf and gave them till November 5 to appeal against the order, which, if the family loses, will result in eviction.

The Pancholis have had their claim turned down by each of the three courts that has heard the case in the three decades that they've battled to remain in the bungalow. They are likely to approach the Supreme Court following the HC ruling.

The Hate family, which owns the bungalow near ISKCON temple in Juhu, brought proceedings against the Pancholis in July 1978 for between February and October 1977. The Pancholis, represented in the HC by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., countered that they hadn't received a notice from the Hates seeking payment of dues - the landlady, Tarabai Hate, claimed it was addressed to Aditya's father Rajan.

The Hates filed suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 in the Small Causes Court in July 1977, seeking the Pancholis' eviction. A year later, the actor's family filed its response: An oral arrangement had been arrived at with the Hates, which required the Pancholis to pay Rs 600 towards obtaining a new water connection, and which amount would be deducted from rent owed. The Pancholis also claimed to have offered to pay rent on several occasions, which the landlady refused because she harboured "ulterior motives".

Eleven years later, the actor's family amended their response and added this detail to buttress the case: They "never received" the October 1977 notice seeking arrears - the document, however, bears Rajan's signature. They also produced two letters by Rajan to Tarabai, written in October and December 1977. The Pancholis claimed that the first letter was written before Tarabai sent the notice, and that she had denied their attempts at paying rent deliberately. This letter also stated that "arrears of rent would be remitted by money orders shortly."

The second message was composed in response to a letter by Tarabai. Both sides disputed the authenticity of the signatures on these three documents: Rajan denied having signed Tarabai's letter of October 1977 and the landlady rejected the claim that she had signed either of the letters sent by Rajan the same year.

Tarabai, represented by advocates Girish Godbole and Maganlal Bhandari in HC, told the court that her letter was hand-delivered to Pancholi, which claim the court accepted. The Small Causes Court sought help of a government handwriting expert; his findings went against the Pancholis on both counts. The actor's family then sought to have an expert of their choice examine the letters, which the court allowed. The specialist indicated his inability to weigh in on either of the signatures.

The court found that the Pancholis not having deposited money or paid the landlord by any other means was detrimental to their case. "At least during the interim period [between 1977 when the notice was sent and 1979, when Rajan responded] Rajan Pancholi had remitted the arrears of rent, something could have been said with regards to the two letters cited by him. Besides, the two letters were not even referred to in the reply filed by Rajan Pancholi (in 1979). All this, makes it clear that attempt on the part of Pancholis to introduce the two letters in the evidence was unsuccessful," the judge observed.