Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 21 September 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 489 of 1994. The dispute concerned a tenanted unit in Kadadi Chawl, Kurduwadi, Madha, where the petitioner was tenant of two rooms at a monthly rent of Rs.7 plus Rs.3 permitted increase. The respondent landlord had issued a statutory notice on 4 March 1989 terminating the tenancy on grounds of default in payment of rent, unauthorized permanent structures, change of user from residential to hotel, and nuisance. The trial court in RCS No. 204 of 1989 decreed eviction only on the ground of default, holding that the tenant had failed to tender rent within one month of notice or deposit rent with interest and costs before first date of hearing. The trial court rejected the other grounds, finding insufficient evidence as to when permanent structures were erected and whether the premises were let for residence. The tenant appealed; the District Judge dismissed the appeal and additionally passed eviction on the grounds of permanent structure, change of user, and nuisance, reversing the trial court's negative findings. The tenant then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined two principal submissions: first, that the trial court erred in finding default because the tenant had tendered rent by money order and regularly deposited rent during pendency; second, that the District Court could not reverse findings on other grounds without a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. The respondent landlord argued that the tenant had not complied with Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, and that a cross-objection was not necessary when the decree was wholly in the respondent's favour, relying on Saurav Jain v. A.B.P. Design, (2022) 18 SCC 633. The court noted incontrovertible facts: statutory notice served on 6 March 1989; the tenant tendered amount on 16 February 1990, after suit institution; no deposit before first date of hearing; issues settled on 27 November 1990; and a belated application for relief against forfeiture filed on 27 January 1994. The High Court found that the trial court and District Judge were justified in holding default and denying relief against forfeiture. The available text ends before the court's final operative order on the other grounds of eviction, but the reasoning indicates agreement with the respondent on the default ground and the procedural point regarding cross-objection.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Forfeiture of Tenancy - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Sections 12(1), 12(3) - The tenant failed to tender rent and permitted increase within one month of service of statutory notice dated 4 March 1989, served 6 March 1989, and made no deposit before first date of hearing nor filed standard rent application within the statutory period. The trial court and District Judge correctly held that the tenant incurred forfeiture of tenancy and was not entitled to relief against forfeiture. Held that statutory compliance is mandatory and belated tender after institution of suit is of no avail (Paras 15-17). B) Civil Procedure - Appellate Powers - Cross-Objection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 22 - The respondent-landlord contended that the appellate court could reverse findings on other eviction grounds without filing cross-objection because the decree was wholly in the respondent's favour. Reliance placed on Saurav Jain v. A.B.P. Design, (2022) 18 SCC 633. Held that a respondent may challenge adverse findings without cross-objection to sustain the decree (Paras 11-13). C) Rent Control - Eviction Grounds - Permanent Structure, Change of User, Nuisance - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The District Court reversed trial court's negative findings and passed eviction on grounds of unauthorized permanent structure, change of user from residential to hotel, and nuisance. Petitioner contended findings were without evidence. The High Court's analysis of these grounds was in progress in the available text; final conclusion not extracted (Paras 8-9, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent and permitted increase and thereby incurred forfeiture of tenancy under Section 12(1) and 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947; whether the appellate court could reverse findings on other eviction grounds without a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC; whether eviction on grounds of permanent structure, change of user, and nuisance was supported by evidence
Final Decision
The High Court found that the trial court and District Judge were justified in returning findings of default in payment of rent and that the tenant was not entitled to relief against forfeiture. The available judgment text ends before the final operative order on the remaining grounds of eviction.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent under Section 12(1) and 12(3) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act
- 1947 leads to forfeiture of tenancy if tenant fails to tender rent within one month of statutory notice or deposit rent with interest and costs before first date of hearing
- appellate court can reverse findings on other grounds without cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC when decree is wholly in favour of respondent
- eviction grounds of permanent structure
- change of user
- and nuisance require evidence of unauthorized erection and change of purpose
