The Revision Applicant, Ms. Gloria Crasto, invoked the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the judgment and decree dated 2 May 2024, issued by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 5/2021. The Appellate Court had overturned the initial decree dated 14 February 2020, passed by the Trial Court, which dismissed the Plaintiffs' eviction suit. The Appellate Court decreed the suit, directing the Revision Applicant to vacate the premises on the grounds of arrears of rent and non-use of the property.

Ms. Crasto contested the Appellate Court's decision, arguing that the notice of arrears was defective due to incorrect addressing and that no valid demand notice was served as required under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (M.R.C. Act). She also disputed the claim of non-use of the premises, citing a lack of proper pleadings and evidence from the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs, owners of the "Bharthania Building," argued that the arrears notice was valid and that Ms. Crasto had defaulted on rent payments. They also claimed the premises were not used for the intended purpose for a continuous period, as indicated by minimal electricity usage.

1. Background of the Case:

• The Plaintiffs served several notices to Ms. Gloria Crasto, claiming she was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay property taxes and other charges.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction on grounds of non-payment and non-use of the premises.
• The Plaintiffs appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the decision, ordering Ms. Crasto to vacate the premises.

2. Revision Applicant's Arguments:

• Defective Notice: Ms. Crasto argued that the notice dated 1 April 2007 was sent to the wrong address, and hence, the suit for arrears of rent was not maintainable.
• Improper Demand: She contended that the demand for rent and taxes from 1971 was invalid, as the tenancy began only in 1990.
• Non-Use of Premises: Ms. Crasto argued that the Plaintiffs failed to prove non-use of the premises for six months prior to the suit, a requirement under Section 16(1)(n) of the M.R.C. Act.

3. Plaintiffs' Counterarguments:

• Valid Notice: The Plaintiffs maintained that the notice was correctly addressed and that Ms. Crasto was aware of her rent arrears.
• Non-Payment of Rent: They asserted that Ms. Crasto had not paid rent since April 2004, and the Appellate Court rightly decreed eviction.
• Non-Use: The Plaintiffs claimed that minimal electricity consumption indicated non-use of the premises for a prolonged period.

4. Court's Consideration:

• The Court examined the validity of the notice and the grounds for eviction, focusing on whether the requirements under the M.R.C. Act were met.
• The Court noted that the Appellate Bench's reliance on electricity consumption was vague and lacked concrete evidence.

5. Conclusion:

• The Court found that the Appellate Bench erred in its judgment due to the absence of proper pleadings regarding non-use and the defective nature of the notice for arrears.
• The Revision Application was granted, setting aside the decree passed by the Appellate Bench.