Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 27/4/2006 passed by the Second Additional Small Cause Court, Nagpur in Civil Suit No.458/2003 and the judgment and order dated 21/11/2006 passed by the District Judge-4, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.377/2006. Both lower courts had decreed eviction against the tenant on two grounds: arrears of rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999, and bonafide need of the landlord under Section 16(1)(g) of the same Act. The tenant challenged the validity of the statutory notice under Section 15, arguing that it included a claim for rent that was time-barred, rendering the notice invalid. The landlord, however, gave up the ground of bonafide need before the High Court, so that part of the decree was set aside. The only issue left was the validity of the notice regarding arrears. The court considered the tenant's submission that the notice must be valid in all respects and that inclusion of a time-barred claim makes it bad. The court held that the notice is not invalid merely because it includes a time-barred claim, as the tenant can dispute the amount. The decree for eviction on the ground of arrears was upheld, but the eviction on bonafide need was quashed. The petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Notice under Section 15 - Validity - Inclusion of Time-Barred Rent - Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999, Section 15 - The tenant argued that the notice demanding arrears included time-barred rent, making the notice invalid. The court held that the notice is not rendered invalid merely because it includes a time-barred claim, as the tenant can dispute the amount. The decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide need was set aside as the landlord gave up that ground. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the statutory notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 is invalid because it includes a claim for rent that is time-barred, and whether such notice can support a decree for eviction.
Final Decision
The petition is partly allowed. The eviction decree on the ground of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) is quashed and set aside. The eviction on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 15(3) is upheld. The notice under Section 15 is held valid despite inclusion of time-barred rent.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 15 of Maharashtra Rent Act
- 1999 must be valid in all respects
- but inclusion of time-barred rent does not invalidate notice if tenant can dispute it
- Section 15(3) allows eviction for arrears
- Section 16(1)(g) bonafide need given up by landlord
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India invoked.
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 181
Writ Petition No. 1752 of 2010
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar for Petitioner, Mr. R.M. Sharma for Respondent
Ramakant s/o Shivnarayan Jaiswal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging eviction decree in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
Tenant sought to quash the eviction decree passed by the Small Cause Court and confirmed by the District Judge.
Filing Reason
Tenant challenged the validity of the statutory notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 on the ground that it included time-barred rent.
Previous Decisions
Second Additional Small Cause Court, Nagpur decreed eviction on 27/4/2006 in Civil Suit No.458/2003; District Judge-4, Nagpur dismissed appeal on 21/11/2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No.377/2006.
Issues
Whether the statutory notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 is invalid because it includes a claim for rent that is time-barred.
Whether the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) can stand when the landlord gave up that ground.
Submissions/Arguments
Tenant argued that the notice under Section 15 demanding arrears included time-barred rent, making the notice bad and incapable of supporting a suit for eviction.
Landlord gave up the ground of bonafide need before the High Court, thus that part of the decree was not contested.
Ratio Decidendi
A notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999 is not rendered invalid merely because it includes a claim for rent that is time-barred, as the tenant can dispute the amount. The decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide need cannot stand if the landlord gives up that ground.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the Courts have found that Respondent / Plaintiff has proved that Tenant is in arrears of rent and he is entitled to recover possession under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999.
Before this Court the Landlord has given up the 'need' and hence validity of that part of order/judgment does not fall for consideration here.
Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for tenant has assailed the finding of both the Courts on the ground that in statutory notice under Section 15 of Rent Act the amount of rent demanded as outstanding includes that claim also which is admittedly time barred and hence, that notice is bad.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Civil Suit No.458/2003 in the Second Additional Small Cause Court, Nagpur for eviction. The suit was decreed on 27/4/2006. The tenant appealed to the District Judge-4, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.377/2006, which was dismissed on 21/11/2006. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999: 15, 15(3), 16(1)(g)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
