Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rent Order Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act — Tenant's Eviction Upheld for Non-Payment of Rent. Court Held That Rent Controller's Order Directing Deposit of Rent and Mesne Profits Was Justified and Not Requiring Interference Under Article 227.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 35
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Somnathappa s/o Nagnathappa Halge, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05/03/2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Parali Vaijinath, District Beed. The order directed the petitioner to deposit rent and mesne profits and to pay costs in a proceeding for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent, Kamalbai w/o Govindlal Goud (since deceased through her L.Rs.), had sought eviction of the petitioner for non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing the advocates for both sides, found that the Rent Controller had correctly applied the provisions of the Act and that the order did not suffer from any error of law or fact. The court noted that the petitioner had not deposited the rent as required and that the order was just and proper. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Deposit of Rent and Mesne Profits - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Sections 12, 13 - The petitioner challenged the order of the Rent Controller directing him to deposit arrears of rent and mesne profits and to pay costs. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was just and proper, and no interference was warranted under Article 227. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order passed by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit rent and mesne profits and to pay costs was legal and proper, and whether the High Court should interfere with such order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Rent control
  • Eviction for non-payment of rent
  • Mesne profits
  • Deposit of rent
  • Article 227 jurisdiction
  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • 1999
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 17

Writ Petition No.1360 of 2012

2013-03-08

S.S. Shinde, J.

Mr. R.S. Deshmukh for petitioner; Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar and Mr. G.R. Syed for respondent No.2

Somnathappa s/o Nagnathappa Halge

Kamalbai w/o Govindlal Goud (since deceased through her L.Rs.)

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 227 challenging order of Rent Controller directing deposit of rent and mesne profits.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the Rent Controller's order dated 05/03/2013.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller directing him to deposit rent and mesne profits and pay costs.

Previous Decisions

Rent Controller passed order on 05/03/2013 directing deposit of rent and mesne profits.

Issues

Whether the Rent Controller's order directing deposit of rent and mesne profits was legal and proper. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order under Article 227.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the order was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Respondent supported the order as just and proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The Rent Controller's order directing deposit of rent and mesne profits was just and proper, and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 05/03/2013 passed by the Rent Controller, Parali Vaijinath, District Beed.

Procedural History

The Rent Controller passed an order on 05/03/2013 directing the petitioner to deposit rent and mesne profits. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 08/03/2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Sections 12, 13
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Employee Resignation Withdrawal Case — Upholds 50% Back-Wages for Unblemished Service. Resignation Withdrawal Before Acceptance Valid; Employer's Acceptance After Withdrawal Ineffective Under Service Law P...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Prima Facie Case – Mandatory Compliance Under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973