Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the landlord (respondent) and the tenant (applicant) over eviction from a flat in Mumbai. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and permitted increases for more than six months and was not ready and willing to pay. The tenant, after receiving the suit summons, deposited arrears and monthly rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, but there were delays on five occasions. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate bench confirmed. The tenant filed a civil revision application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined whether the tenant's deposit was regular and found that the delays indicated non-compliance. The court held that the word 'regularly' requires substantial compliance, but the tenant's conduct did not meet that standard. The revision was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Arrears of Rent - Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The tenant deposited arrears of rent and permitted increases after suit was filed, but there were delays in depositing monthly rent on five occasions. The court held that the word 'regularly' in Section 15(3) requires substantial compliance, but the tenant's conduct showed lack of regularity, and thus the eviction decree was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - The High Court in revision examined whether the lower courts' findings on deposit of rent were perverse. It found no perversity and dismissed the revision application. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's deposit of arrears of rent and permitted increases under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, albeit with some delays, constitutes sufficient compliance to protect against eviction?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate bench.
Law Points
- Section 115 CPC
- Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Eviction on ground of arrears of rent
- Regular deposit of rent
- Sufficient compliance
Case Details
2024 Lawtext (BOM) (6) 271
Civil Revision Application No. 8920 of 2021
Mr. Naik (senior advocate for revision applicant)
Abhay Dushyant Desai (legal representative of original defendant)
Jagdish Kumudchandra Chheda (landlord/plaintiff)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging eviction decree in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
The applicant/tenant sought to set aside the eviction decree and dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The tenant was aggrieved by the appellate bench's dismissal of his appeal, which confirmed the trial court's decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Small Causes Court) decreed eviction on 22 November 2012. The appellate bench dismissed the tenant's appeal on 24 April 2023.
Issues
Whether the tenant's deposit of arrears and monthly rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was regular and sufficient to protect against eviction?
Whether the findings of the lower courts on the issue of deposit of rent are perverse?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he had deposited arrears and rent regularly, with only minor delays, and that the word 'regularly' does not require mathematical precision. He relied on Supreme Court judgments.
The respondent/landlord contended that the tenant failed to deposit rent regularly and that the eviction decree was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'regularly' in Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 requires substantial compliance with the order to deposit rent each month. Delays in deposit, even if few, indicate lack of regularity and justify eviction.
Judgment Excerpts
Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Code) is invoked challenging the judgment and order dated 24 April 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, dismissing Appeal No. 03 of 2013 filed by the Applicant and confirming the Judgment and Order dated 22 November 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.436 /816 of 2004.
Mr. Naik would submit that the word ‘regularly’ appearing in Section 15(3) cannot be interpreted to mean that the rent must be deposited each month by mathematical precision.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for eviction in 2004. The trial court decreed eviction on 22 November 2012. The tenant appealed to the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeal on 24 April 2023. The tenant then filed a civil revision application in the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 115, Order XX Rule 12, Order XLI Rule 27
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 15(3)
