Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenant (Dilip Jasaramji Mali) challenging the concurrent eviction decrees passed by the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench in favor of the landlord (Ramesh Ganesh Saxena). The landlord had filed RAE Suit No.438 of 2017 seeking eviction of the tenant from Flat No.2B, Saxena House, Mumbai, on grounds of default in payment of rent and breach of tenancy terms. The tenant was inducted as a tenant under a rent agreement dated 15 December 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. The landlord alleged that the tenant was irregular in paying rent and served two notices dated 21 January 2009 and 14 July 2012. The tenant contested the suit, claiming that the landlord was not the sole owner and that a third party had purchased a share in the property, and denied any default. The trial court decreed the suit on 20 April 2023, holding that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay rent and had committed breach of tenancy terms. The appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal on 2 November 2023. In the revision, the tenant argued that the suit was not maintainable due to lack of a valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and that the ground of denial of title was not pleaded. The landlord contended that the notice dated 14 July 2012 was a valid demand and that the tenant's irregular payment and denial of title justified eviction. The High Court held that the notice dated 14 July 2012, which intimated the tenant about arrears, constituted a valid demand under Section 15(2) of the MRC Act, and no specific form is prescribed. The court further held that Section 15(1) imposes a duty on the tenant to pay rent regularly every month, and the tenant's irregular payment pattern, even if no arrears existed on the date of suit, justified eviction. Additionally, the tenant's denial of the landlord's title in the written statement amounted to a breach of tenancy terms under Section 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 15(2) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Notice of Demand - The court held that the notice dated 14 July 2012, which intimated the tenant about arrears of rent, constituted a valid demand under Section 15(2) of the MRC Act, and no specific form is prescribed. The suit filed after such notice was maintainable even if the tenant made some payments thereafter, as the tenant continued to be irregular in payment. (Paras 10-14) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Breach of Tenancy Terms - Section 15(1) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Regular Payment of Rent - The court held that Section 15(1) imposes a duty on the tenant to pay rent regularly every month, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of the terms of tenancy, independent of the ground of arrears. The tenant's irregular payment pattern, even if no arrears existed on the date of suit, justified eviction. (Paras 15-18) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Denial of Landlord's Title - Section 108(p) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Breach of Tenancy - The court held that the tenant's denial of the landlord's title in the written statement, by asserting that the plaintiff was not the sole owner and that a third party had purchased a share, amounted to a denial of the landlord's title, which is a breach of the terms of tenancy under Section 108(p) of the TP Act, even if not specifically pleaded as a ground in the plaint. (Paras 19-22) D) Civil Procedure - Revision - Concurrent Findings - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interference - The court held that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and appellate courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The findings of default and denial of title were supported by evidence and not perverse. (Paras 23-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for eviction was maintainable in absence of a valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title and irregular payment of rent justified eviction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the eviction decrees passed by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench. The tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over possession to the landlord.
Law Points
- Section 15(2) notice need not be in a particular form
- intimation of arrears suffices
- No limitation period for filing suit after demand notice
- Section 15(1) imposes duty to pay rent regularly
- Breach of Section 15(1) can be independent ground for eviction
- Section 15(3) mandatory deposit requirement
- Denial of landlord's title amounts to breach of tenancy terms
- Concurrent findings not interfered with unless perverse
