Case Note & Summary
The dispute arises from a suit for eviction filed by the landlord (respondent) against the tenant (petitioner) in respect of three rooms and an enclosed platform on the ground floor of Municipal House No.3309, Nashik. The landlord claimed that after the death of the original owner Hafizabi Kadar Khan Pathan on 12 November 1974, the suit premises came to his share through a partition, and he became the landlord. The tenant was in arrears of rent from 1 January 1975 to 31 October 1983, amounting to Rs.5,830/-. The landlord served a notice dated 19 November 1983 terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears and possession. The tenant denied receipt of the notice and claimed that the rent was paid to other heirs. The tenant also filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears, and dismissed the standard rent application. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court held that the notice sent to the tenant's school address was validly served as the tenant was known to be a teacher and had refused to accept the notice. The tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months justified eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The standard rent application was rightly dismissed as it could not be entertained after the eviction decree. The application for additional evidence was also rightly rejected. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Service of Notice - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(a) - The court considered whether a notice of demand sent to the tenant's school address was validly served. The tenant was a teacher and had previously received a notice at the suit premises. The court held that since the tenant was known to be a teacher and the notice was sent to his correct school address, and the tenant refused to accept it, the service was valid. The tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months justified eviction. (Paras 12-15)
B) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Application for Fixation - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 11 - The tenant filed an application for fixation of standard rent after the suit for eviction was filed. The court held that such an application cannot be entertained after the decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, as the tenant's right to seek standard rent is not a defence to eviction when arrears are proved. (Para 16)
C) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The tenant sought to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage. The court held that the application was rightly rejected as the tenant failed to show that the evidence was relevant or that it could not have been produced earlier. (Para 17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice of demand dated 19 November 1983 was validly served on the tenant when sent to his school address instead of the suit premises, and whether the tenant is liable for eviction for arrears of rent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The court held that the notice of demand was validly served at the tenant's school address, and the tenant was liable for eviction for arrears of rent. The standard rent application was rightly dismissed, and the rejection of additional evidence was proper.
Law Points
- Service of notice at tenant's school address is valid when tenant is known to be a teacher and refuses to accept notice at suit premises
- Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882 need not be sent only to suit premises if tenant's correct address is known
- Tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months justifies eviction under Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Standard rent application cannot be entertained after decree of eviction on ground of arrears of rent
- Additional evidence cannot be allowed at appellate stage if not shown to be relevant or necessary.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 153
Writ Petition No.1998 of 1995
Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Ms. Aditi Naikare for the Petitioners, Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for Respondents
Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Mohamad Hanifsaheb (since deceased through his legal heirs)
Mohamudkhan Kadar Khan Pathan (since deceased through his heirs and legal representatives)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent decrees of eviction passed by Trial Court and Appellate Court in a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the decree of eviction and dismissal of standard rent application.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the decree dated 28 July 1994 passed by District Judge, Nashik dismissing Civil Appeal No.91 of 1988 and confirming the decree dated 9 April 1987 passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nashik in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1984 and Miscellaneous Application No.279 of 1985.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 9 April 1987 and dismissed the standard rent application. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 20 July 1994.
Issues
Whether the notice of demand dated 19 November 1983 was validly served on the tenant when sent to his school address instead of the suit premises.
Whether the tenant is liable for eviction for arrears of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Whether the tenant's application for fixation of standard rent could be entertained after the decree of eviction.
Whether the Appellate Court erred in rejecting the tenant's application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the notice dated 19 November 1983 was never served upon the Defendant as it was sent to his school address instead of the suit premises, and the previous notice dated 22 June 1978 was sent to the suit premises. The report of Public Relation Inspector showed records were destroyed, so the remark of refusal cannot be treated as due service.
Respondent argued that the notice was validly served as the tenant was known to be a teacher and the notice was sent to his correct school address, and the tenant refused to accept it. The tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months justified eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
A notice of demand under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can be validly served at the tenant's place of employment if the tenant is known to be employed there and refuses to accept notice at the suit premises. The tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months constitutes a ground for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. An application for fixation of standard rent cannot be entertained after a decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be allowed if the tenant fails to show that the evidence was relevant or could not have been produced earlier.
Judgment Excerpts
The notice was sent to the school address of the Defendant instead of the suit premises. The Defendant was a teacher and the notice was sent to his correct school address. The Defendant refused to accept the notice. Therefore, the service of notice is valid.
The tenant's failure to pay rent for more than six months justifies eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents Act.
The application for fixation of standard rent cannot be entertained after the decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent.
The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected as the tenant failed to show that the evidence was relevant or could not have been produced earlier.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 1984 for eviction and arrears of rent. The tenant filed Miscellaneous Application No.279 of 1985 for fixation of standard rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 9 April 1987 and dismissed the standard rent application. The tenant appealed to the District Court, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No.91 of 1988, which was dismissed on 20 July 1994. The tenant then filed the present Writ Petition No.1998 of 1995 in the Bombay High Court, which was admitted with interim stay. During pendency, both parties died and their legal heirs were substituted. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 15 July 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(a), Section 11
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 20 Rule 12(1)(c), Order 41 Rule 27
