The SC order upheld an eviction decree passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court in Mumbai in February 2010, which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court.The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and upheld a Bombay High Court ruling on March 27 to hand over a plot housing a bungalow on the iconic Pali Hill in Bandra (West) to over 15 co-owners. The luxury plot had served as the residence of its former chairman, A M Naik, for over two decades.The SC order upheld an eviction decree passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court in Mumbai in February 2010, which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court.The appellate bench, while deciding the suit filed under the Maharashtra Rent Control (MRC) Act, directed L&T to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises.The suit premises included a plot of land measuring 3,633 square yards (3,038.75 square metres) with a bungalow consisting of a basement, ground floor, first floor, and servant quarters at 54, Pali Hill Road, which had served as Naik’s residence for over 20 years. It is a part of a larger property of nearly 1 acre. Naik served as the company’s chairman and managing director from 2003 to 2023 and is presently the Chairman Emeritus.A Supreme Court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria dismissed L&T’s appeal filed through a special leave petition (SLP) and held: “Having heard counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.”The dispute dates back to a tenancy from the 1940s. In 1961, a lease deed was executed in favour of L&T for 12 years, from January 1958 to December 1970. After the MRC Act came into force, the group of co-owners filed a suit in 2001 seeking eviction. They claimed the tenancy had been duly terminated through a notice in August 1996, and the lease had expired long ago; therefore, L&T was required to hand over the entire possession of the property.During the proceedings, L&T acquired a 7 per cent undivided share in the larger property from one of the co-owners, Amar Munot. Subsequently, another co-owner, Ramniklal Kothari, transferred his 22.5 per cent undivided share in the larger property to L&T, increasing its stake to 29.5 per cent. This enabled L&T to claim that it had become a co-owner in the property.Story continues below this adIn 2007, the trial court dismissed the suit, and subsequently the order was reversed by the appellate bench in February, 2010, ordering L&T to hand over the possession, prompting it to approach the HC.L&T claimed before the High Court that Munot had objected to the filing of the suit before the Small Causes Court and therefore the suit had become untenable.However, a single-judge bench of Justice M M Sathaye of the High Court on March 27, 2026 rejecting L&T’s claim, observed and held, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 (Munot) during the pendency of the suit is tainted with the collateral purpose of the sale of a 7% share in favour of the revision applicant-tenant (L&T) and therefore it cannot adversely affect the maintainability of the suit. The suit as filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is maintainable and the decree passed by the appellate court of eviction cannot be faulted.”An aggrieved L&T then approached the SC.