Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Fehameeda Begum, is the landlady of a premises occupied by the respondent, Shri Abdul Hafiz, as a tenant. The landlady issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, demanding arrears of rent from 01/11/2002 to 31/10/2005 at the rate of Rs. 450 per month. The tenant did not pay the rent despite service of notice. Consequently, the landlady filed a suit for recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Act. The trial court decreed the suit under Section 15, ordering possession, but rejected the claim under Section 16(1)(g). The tenant appealed, and the landlady filed a cross-appeal. The first appellate court allowed the tenant's appeal, holding that the notice under Section 15 was bad in law because it demanded rent at Rs. 450 per month when the admitted rent between the parties was only Rs. 200 per month. The landlady challenged this appellate judgment in the High Court. The High Court framed the sole issue: whether a notice under Section 15 demanding a higher rent than the agreed rent is valid. The Court noted that Section 15 requires the tenant to pay or deposit the admitted rent within 90 days of notice or suit summons, failing which the tenant loses protection against eviction. The Court held that the notice demanding a higher rent does not invalidate the notice; the tenant is still obliged to pay the admitted rent. The appellate court's view that the notice was bad was erroneous. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for possession under Section 15.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Notice under Section 15 - Validity of Demand for Higher Rent - Section 15 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The issue was whether a notice demanding rent at a rate higher than the agreed rent is valid. The Court held that such a notice is valid and the tenant is required to pay the arrears of admitted rent within 90 days from receipt of notice or suit summons. The appellate court erred in holding the notice bad in law. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and tenant is bad in law
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the judgment of the first appellate court dated 22/03/2012, and restored the decree of the trial court for possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 15 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 demanding higher rent than agreed rent is valid
- tenant must pay arrears within 90 days of notice or suit summons
