Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Petition in Eviction Case for Non-Compliance of Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Concurrent findings of arrears of rent for 36 months and failure to tender standard rent and permitted increases upheld.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Chandiram s/o Dariyanumal Ahuja, was a tenant of the respondent, Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha, a registered co-operative society. The respondent filed Small Cause Suit No.22 of 2003 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent for 36 months. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, passed a decree for eviction and possession on 17-12-2004, holding that the tenant had failed to comply with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The tenant appealed to the Principal District Judge, Akola, in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2005, which was dismissed on 16-1-2007. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court examined the trial court's judgment, particularly paragraph 13, where the question of compliance of Section 15(3) was considered. The trial court found that the tenant had not tendered the standard rent and permitted increases with simple interest on the arrears. The appellate court affirmed this finding. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Non-compliance - Tenant failed to tender standard rent and permitted increases with simple interest on arrears for 36 months - Both courts below held tenant in default and passed eviction decree - High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact - Held that findings are not perverse and no substantial question of law arises (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-compliance of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 by the tenant are sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • 1999 requires tenant to pay or tender standard rent and permitted increases with interest on arrears
  • failure to comply results in eviction decree
  • concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (06) 101

Writ Petition No.1101 of 2007

2012-06-25

R.K. Deshpande, J.

Shri C.A. Joshi for Petitioner, Shri A.S. Chandurkar for Respondent

Chandiram s/o Dariyanumal Ahuja

Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha, Regd. Co-operative Society through its Manager Shri Vijay Baburao Ishwarkar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact in eviction suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner-tenant sought to set aside the eviction decree and dismissal of appeal.

Filing Reason

Petitioner-tenant failed to pay arrears of rent for 36 months and did not comply with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed eviction on 17-12-2004; Appellate Court dismissed appeal on 16-1-2007.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-compliance of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are perverse or warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the findings of fact are erroneous and require interference. Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued no interference is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below regarding non-compliance of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are not perverse and do not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

In para 13 of the judgment and order delivered by the Trial Court, the question of compliance of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act has been considered. It has been held that the petitioner-tenant has failed to tender the standard rent and permitted increases with simple interest on the arrears.

Procedural History

Small Cause Suit No.22 of 2003 filed by respondent-landlord for eviction on ground of arrears of rent for 36 months. Trial Court decreed eviction on 17-12-2004. Tenant appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2005, which was dismissed on 16-1-2007. Tenant then filed Writ Petition No.1101 of 2007 in the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 15(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Petition in Eviction Case for Non-Compliance of Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Concurrent findings of arrears of rent for 36 months and failure to tender standard rent and permitted increases...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Appellant in NDPS Act Case for Possession of 17.5 Kg Ganja — Chance Recovery from Baggage Does Not Require Compliance with Sections 42 and 50. Evidence of Seizure and Forensic Report Sufficient to Sustain Con...