Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26 February 2016 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.375/543 of 2003, and the appellate judgment dated 5 May 2022. The original plaintiff, Rukmini Krishna Turbhekar, filed a suit for eviction against the original defendant, Joseph Anthony (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), on grounds of arrears of rent, illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structure, and bona fide requirement. The Small Causes Court decreed the suit only on the ground of arrears of rent, rejecting the other grounds. The defendants filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The revision applicants (defendants) contended that they had deposited the entire arrears of rent, costs, and interest within 90 days as provided under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit summons was served on 2 April 2005. The defendants filed an application for deposit on 3 May 2005, within 90 days. However, the trial court and appellate bench erroneously recorded that the application was filed on 10 October 2005. The court directed payment by 15 November 2005, which was a holiday, and the deposit was made on 16 November 2005. The High Court held that the application was filed within 90 days, and the deposit was made on the next working day, relying on Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904. The court found the findings of the courts below perverse and set aside the eviction decree, allowing the revision application.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Arrears of Rent - Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Deposit of Arrears - The tenant filed an application for deposit of arrears of rent, interest and costs within 90 days of service of suit summons. The trial court erroneously recorded that the application was filed on 10 October 2005 instead of 3 May 2005. The actual deposit was made on 16 November 2005, one day after the extended date of 15 November 2005 fixed by the court, which was a holiday. Held that the tenant complied with Section 15(3) as the application was filed within 90 days and the deposit was made on the next working day, relying on Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904. The findings of the courts below were perverse. (Paras 8-11)
B) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Arrears of Rent - Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Court's Delay - The tenant cannot be penalized for the court's delay in processing the application for deposit. The tenant had done everything within his power to comply with the statutory requirement. Held that the decree for eviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's deposit of arrears of rent, interest and costs within 90 days of service of suit summons under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was made in time, considering that the application for deposit was filed within 90 days but the actual deposit was made after 90 days due to court's delay in processing the application.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the judgment and decree dated 26 February 2016 passed by the Small Causes Court and the judgment and order dated 5 May 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench. The suit for eviction on ground of arrears of rent was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- deposit of arrears within 90 days
- application for deposit filed within 90 days
- court delay in processing application
- Section 11 of Maharashtra General Clauses Act
- 1904
- holiday extension
- perverse finding by trial court
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 307
Civil Revision Application No.394 of 2022
Ms. Minakshi Surve for Applicants, Mr. R.M. Haridas for Respondent
Joseph Anthony (since deceased) through his legal heir- 1a. Mrs. Maizaben Anis Khan and Anr.
Rukmini Krishna Turbhekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging eviction decree on ground of arrears of rent under Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Remedy Sought
Revision applicants (original defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and confirmed by the Appellate Bench.
Filing Reason
The defendants were in arrears of rent and failed to comply with notice under Section 15(2) of the MRC Act. The suit was decreed on ground of arrears of rent.
Previous Decisions
The Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 26 February 2016 on ground of arrears of rent. The Appellate Bench dismissed Appeal No.222 of 2016 on 5 May 2022.
Issues
Whether the defendants deposited arrears of rent, interest and costs within 90 days of service of suit summons as required under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the trial court's finding that the application for deposit was filed on 10 October 2005 instead of 3 May 2005 is perverse.
Whether the deposit made on 16 November 2005 (next working day after holiday) is valid under Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904.
Submissions/Arguments
Revision applicants argued that they filed application for deposit on 3 May 2005 within 90 days, and deposit was made on 16 November 2005 as per court order, which was the next working day after a holiday. They relied on Section 11 of Maharashtra General Clauses Act and judgments of Apex Court.
Respondent argued that deposit was not made within 90 days, and the mandatory period cannot be extended. Relied on judgments of Apex Court and this Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, a tenant must deposit arrears of rent, interest and costs within 90 days of service of suit summons. If the tenant files an application for deposit within 90 days, and the court delays processing it, the tenant cannot be penalized. Further, if the last day for deposit is a holiday, deposit on the next working day is valid under Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904. The trial court's erroneous finding that the application was filed on 10 October 2005 was perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The application for deposit of arrears of rent with interest @ 15% and costs of the Suit was undoubtedly filed by the Defendants within a period of 90 days of service of suit summons.
Thus, the findings recorded by the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench that such Notice was taken out on 10 October 2005 appears to be clearly perverse.
If the application was to be decided immediately, the deposit would also have been made within a period of 90 days. However, it appears that there was slight delay on the part of the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court in deciding the said Notice.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.375/543 of 2003 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay seeking eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structure, and bona fide requirement. The suit was decreed on 26 February 2016 only on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendants filed Appeal No.222 of 2016 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which was dismissed on 5 May 2022. The defendants then filed the present Civil Revision Application No.394 of 2022 in the Bombay High Court under Section 115 of CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 15(2), Section 15(3)
- Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904: Section 11
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106
