Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, seven cooperative housing societies, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the trial court dated 30th April 2013, which rejected their application to strike out the defence of the respondents (tenants) under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioners had filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. During the suit, the trial court had directed the respondents to pay interim rent at a certain rate. The respondents failed to pay the interim rent as directed, leading the petitioners to file an application to strike out their defence. The trial court rejected this application, observing that the respondents had paid the arrears of rent and that the provision for striking out defence was discretionary. The petitioners argued that Section 13(2) is mandatory and that the trial court erred in not striking out the defence. The High Court examined the language of Section 13(2) and noted that it uses the word 'may', indicating discretion. The court held that striking out defence is a serious consequence and should not be imposed mechanically. The trial court had considered that the respondents had paid the arrears and that there was no deliberate default. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's discretion.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Striking Out Defence - Section 13(2) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Discretionary Power - The provision for striking out defence for non-payment of interim rent is not mandatory but discretionary. The court must consider the conduct of the tenant and the reasons for default. The trial court's refusal to strike out defence was upheld as no perversity was shown. (Paras 5-8) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court in writ jurisdiction will not interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence. The trial court's order refusing to strike out defence was found to be a valid exercise of discretion. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's refusal to strike out the defence of the tenants under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for non-payment of interim rent was proper and whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order refusing to strike out the defence.
Law Points
- Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 is not mandatory but discretionary
- striking out defence is a serious consequence
- discretion must be exercised judicially
- writ court will not interfere unless order is perverse or arbitrary
