MUMBAI: The dispute over the Pali Hill bungalow, valued at over ₹1,000 crore, has concluded with L&T losing a lengthy battle that lasted two decades. The case revolved around a property with a lease that expired in 1970, but the tenant continued to occupy the premises, leading the owners to file for eviction in 2001.
During the legal proceedings, Larsen & Toubro Limited acquired a minority share in the property and argued that it had become a co-owner, claiming eviction couldn’t be enforced. The courts dismissed this argument, deeming it a legal maneuver to impede the eviction. The Supreme Court of India has now upheld the eviction order, directing that possession be returned to the rightful owners.
The focus of the litigation was the prestigious bungalow located at 54 Pali Hill Road, one of Mumbai’s prime addresses. The property spans 3,633 square yards and features a spacious bungalow with several floors, servant quarters, and open grounds, making it one of the few large legacy plots in Bandra.
The tenancy dates back to the 1940s, with a formal lease initiated in 1961, concluding on December 31, 1970. Despite the lease expiration, L&T continued to reside in the property. In 1971, the Kothari family and other co-owners acquired the estate and became the landlords.
Later, under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the owners issued notices to L&T for vacation. They asserted that companies with paid-up share capital over ₹1 crore were no longer covered by rent control protections. Since L&T fell within this category, they claimed the tenancy was terminated and possession should be granted back. When the eviction suit was filed in 2001, the circumstances shifted. A co-owner, Amar P. Munot, sold a minority undivided share to L&T during the proceedings, leading L&T to claim co-ownership and argue against eviction.
The trial court initially sided with L&T, dismissing the eviction suit in 2007. However, the Small Causes Court’s appellate bench overturned this ruling in 2010, demanding L&T vacate the property and initiating an inquiry into profits accrued from wrongful occupancy.
L&T contested this decision in the Bombay High Court, which ruled against them in March 2026. Justice M.M. Sathaye stated that while co-owners could contest eviction, such challenges must be genuine. The court found that the sale of shares to the tenant during litigation was aimed at benefitting L&T, thus concluding that a tenant cannot strategically buy a fractional share to undermine the rights of other owners.
With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the High Court’s decision is now final. L&T is ordered to vacate the Pali Hill bungalow and surrender possession to the Kothari family and other owners, concluding a dispute that has lasted over two decades.
