nagpur coming to a tenants rescue the nagpur bench of bombay high court hc ruled that even if a shop was demolished by the civic body his tenancy wouldnt endit took over 15 years for the court to dismiss second appeal filed by the bajaj nagar resident the bitter legal dispute started about 26 years back when the tenant filed a civil suit against landlord for allegedly demolishing a shop for new shoppingcumresidential complex without following due proceduremerely because the shop block was demolished by nagpur improvement trust nit the tenancy of respondent will not come to an end the shop block leased out to him cant determine or terminate his tenancy rights a singlejudge bench comprising justice vinay deshpande heldpetitioner kunda kolhatkar leased out a shop in bajaj nagar to tenant lalit agre as per an agreement inked between them on may 19 1988 for 11 months it was agreed that the tenant would pay rs450 monthly rent and rs10000 deposit to the owner the tenant continued to occupy the shop even after expiry of the agreement but he was regularly paying monthly rent and no objection was raised by the ownera year later kolhatkar entered into a pact with a builder on august 23 1990 to construct a new complex on the plot she entered into another pact with agre to vacate the shop in lieu of getting another one in new complexhowever the respondent alleged that the petitioner deliberately displayed his shop as unauthorized in the old map and got new one sanctioned from the nit stating that it needs to be demolished subsequently the civic body razed the shopthe tenant filed a civil suit contending that he was a regular tenant as per agreement and cant be evicted from the premises without following due process of law he also prayed for one shop in the new complex as per the pact with owner it was however dismissed by the trial court on september 15 2000 which he challenged in the appellate courtwhile partly allowing his appeal on may 4 2002 the court directed the owner to hand over a shop to him in the new constructionthe petitioner challenged this order in the higher judiciary which was admitted on december 17 2002 and came up for hearing earlier this year its clear that the shop in occupation with respondent was demolished and he was evicted without following due process of law the petitioners submission that respondent is not entitled for a new shop as their original agreement for 11 months expired long back is misconceived justice deshpande stated before rejecting the plea