Bombay High Court Refuses To Direct Tenants To Vacate The Premises Belonging To The Royal Family Of Kuwait

Read Time: 05 minutes


The High court refused to grant interim relief to the daughter belonging to the Royal Family of Kuwait on the grounds that they were not able to prove that the concerned tenancy agreements were forged and fabricated and that the defendants had taken possession of the said property illegally.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice B.P Colabawalla has refused to direct three businessmen to vacate the property belonging to the Kuwait Royale in an interim application filed by Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Sabah, the daughter of the late His Highness Sheikh Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, who was the Prime Minister and then became the head of State of Kuwait.

The High Court was hearing a plea filed by the heirs of the Royale Family. The case was filed in 2014 after which an interim application was filed by the daughter seeking to direct the three businessmen to vacate the property belonging to the Royale Family. 

Shiek Saad died on 8 May 2018 after which the properties were inherited by his family. The daughter, in her plea, had stated that the building at Marine Lines was being managed by Faisal Essa who was the former Counsel General of Kuwait. The former Counsel General left India in May 2013 and the three businessmen illegally took possession of the property by forging the documents. The plea also sought Rs 35 Lakhs per month for staying in the building owned by the Royale Family.

Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf on behalf of the defendants argued that the businessmen had acquired the possession of the property through a tenancy agreement signed on October 30, 2012. The said agreement was signed by the former counsel general of Kuwait on behalf of the Royale Family.

He further argued that t it is an undisputed position that Plaintiff never visited the suit premises and even now, Plaintiff has stopped taking care of the building Al-Sabah Court altogether. He submitted that the Plaintiff has stopped collecting rent from the tenants since 2016 and it is the tenants themselves who are collecting the rent and using it towards the maintenance and upkeep of the building.

The court while refusing to grant interim relief to the plaintiff noted,

“Prima facie it would appear that these affidavits have been prepared by Faisal Essa himself and then the tenants have been called upon to execute these affidavits.”

The court observed that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the documents were forged and fabricated. The court said,

“The Tenancy Agreements executed by Faisal Essa which Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 prima facie appeared to be genuine and not forged and fabricated. I am therefore of the opinion that the Plaintiff has been unable to prima facie establish that the Tenancy Agreement dated 30th October 2012 entered into with Defendant No.1 is a forged and fabricated”.

The Court however directed the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring, encumbering, or creating any third-party rights of the disputed property.