Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) - Specifically, Sections 15(2) and 15(3), dealing with the eviction of tenants based on non-payment of rent and unlawful subletting.
2. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Discussed in relation to the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings.

• The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the landlords regarding the eviction of tenants based on non-payment of rent.
• The Court dismissed the landlord’s claim of unlawful subletting, stating insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Short Note:

The Bombay High Court's decision revolves around an eviction dispute where M/s. Bhimale and Sons, the tenants, challenged an eviction decree upheld by the District Judge, Pune. The case primarily dealt with whether tenants were guilty of rent default and whether subletting took place unlawfully. The judgment clarified that tenants must pay due rent to avoid eviction but dismissed claims of subletting due to lack of concrete proof.

Para-wise Main Facts:

1. Introduction and Procedural Background:

• The case involves cross-proceedings challenging a judgment passed by the District Judge, Pune, confirming an eviction decree dated 9 September 2014 issued by the Small Causes Court.
• Civil Revision Application No. 71/2024 and Writ Petition No. 8788/2024 are consolidated for final disposal.

2. Facts of the Case:

• The suit premises consist of land and a shed in Pune.
• The plaintiffs (landlords) claim ownership through inheritance and assert that the defendants are illegally occupying the premises.
• The tenants allegedly failed to pay rent since February 1993, leading to the filing of a suit.

3. Issues and Grounds:

• Unlawful Subletting: The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 sublet the premises to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without their consent.
• Change of Use: Defendants were accused of changing the use of the premises by operating a toddy shop instead of the original scrap business.
• Rent Default: The primary ground for eviction was non-payment of rent.

4. Evidence and Findings:

• The Small Causes Court decreed eviction solely on the ground of rent default, rejecting the subletting and change of use claims due to insufficient evidence.
• The Appellate Court confirmed this decision and dismissed the tenants' appeal but also dismissed the landlord’s cross-objections on subletting.

5. Court’s Analysis:

• Rent Default: The Court emphasized that tenants failed to demonstrate payment or deposit of rent per Section 15(3) of the MRC Act, affirming the eviction on this ground.
• Subletting: Despite allegations, the Court found no concrete evidence to prove Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were illegal sub-tenants, rejecting this claim.
• Additional Evidence: The application to admit new evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 was rejected as the evidence was neither new nor significant to alter the findings.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio of the judgment is that a landlord-tenant relationship necessitates rent payment, and failure to fulfill this obligation provides sufficient grounds for eviction under the MRC Act. However, without concrete evidence, claims of unlawful subletting cannot be sustained.

Subjects:

Rent Control, Eviction, Landlord-Tenant Disputes

Rent Default, Subletting, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Maharashtra Rent Control Act