Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the defendant-tenant, Ms. Gloria Lois Crasto, challenging the judgment and decree dated 2 May 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 5/2021. The Appellate Bench had allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and decreed the suit for eviction on grounds of arrears of rent and non-user, reversing the Trial Court's decree dated 14 February 2020 which had dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs/respondents are owners of a building named 'Bharthania Building' in Mumbai. A tenancy agreement was executed on 18 June 1990 between the plaintiffs' predecessor and the defendant and her mother for a room on the first floor. The plaintiffs served a notice dated 26 August 2006 claiming arrears of rent and taxes, followed by a reminder on 12 December 2006 and an advocate's notice dated 1 April 2007 demanding possession. The defendant denied receiving the advocate's notice and contended that it was addressed to 'C-Block' instead of the correct 'D-Block'. The plaintiffs filed R.A.E. Suit No. 743/1278/2008 seeking eviction on grounds of default and non-user. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Bench reversed and decreed eviction. The defendant then filed the present revision. The key legal issues were: (1) whether the statutory notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was validly served; (2) whether the ground of non-user was properly pleaded and proved; and (3) whether the demand for rent from 1971 was illegal. The defendant argued that the notice was sent to the wrong address and that she never received it, and that the non-user ground lacked pleadings. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant received the earlier notice and that the authority of the sender was not disputed. The High Court found that the Appellate Bench failed to decide the issue of valid service of notice, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court also noted that the demand for rent from 1971 was contrary to Section 10 of the Act. On non-user, the court observed that the plaintiffs did not specifically plead or prove continuous non-user for six months prior to the suit. The High Court set aside the Appellate Bench's decree and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Appellate Bench to decide all issues including the validity of the notice and the non-user ground in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Service of Notice - Section 15(2) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Jurisdictional Requirement - The service of a valid statutory notice under Section 15(2) is a condition precedent for filing a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The Appellate Bench failed to decide the issue of valid service of notice dated 1 April 2007, which was addressed to 'C-Block' instead of 'D-Block', and the defendant denied receipt. Held that the Appellate Court must decide all issues, including the validity of notice, before decreeing the suit (Paras 4-5, 10-11). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User - Section 16(1)(m) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Pleadings and Proof - For eviction on ground of non-user, the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove that the premises were not used for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause. The Appellate Bench erred in accepting this ground in absence of such pleadings and evidence (Para 8). C) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Demand of Excess Rent - Section 10 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Illegal Demand - Demand of rent for period prior to creation of tenancy (since 1971 when tenancy began in 1990) is contrary to Section 10 and renders the notice defective (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court erred in decreeing the suit for eviction on grounds of arrears of rent and non-user without properly considering the issue of valid service of statutory notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the judgment and decree dated 2 May 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 5/2021, and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Bench for fresh consideration. The Appellate Bench is directed to decide all issues, including the validity of service of notice under Section 15(2) and the ground of non-user under Section 16(1)(m), in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Service of statutory notice under Section 15(2) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite for suit on ground of arrears of rent
- Notice must be addressed to correct premises
- Appellate Court must decide all issues including validity of notice
- Non-user ground requires specific pleadings and proof of six months continuous non-user prior to suit
