Case Note & Summary
The dispute in this case is between the petitioner, who is a tenant, and the respondents, who are the landlords. The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Court in favor of the original respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for the period from 1st February 1999 till 31st July 2001. The judgment and decree were passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The main legal issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against a decree under the Rent Control Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable, as the Act does not provide for a revision or appeal. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The Court observed that the petitioner had not made any deposit of the arrears, and therefore, no relief could be granted. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 227 of Constitution - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Court held that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against a decree passed under the Rent Control Act, as the Act does not provide for a revision or appeal against such decrees. However, the Court declined to interfere as the tenant failed to deposit arrears as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. (Paras 3-5)
B) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st February 1999 to 31st July 2001. The Court noted that the tenant did not deposit the arrears despite the decree, and therefore, no relief could be granted. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against a judgment and decree passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled to relief despite not depositing arrears of rent as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 against decree under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Requirement of deposit of arrears under Section 12(3)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Eviction for arrears of rent
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 137
Writ Petition No.3470 of 2003
Shri S.R. Deshpande for petitioner, Shri C.A. Joshi for respondent no.1(a) to 1(g), Shri N.S. Rao for respondent nos. 2 and 3
Shri Suresh S/o Manikchand Patni
Kachrulal s/o Shankarlal Sarda (through L.Rs.) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging eviction decree for arrears of rent under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to quash the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the subordinate Court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1st February 1999 to 31st July 2001, leading to eviction decree.
Previous Decisions
Subordinate Court passed judgment and decree in favor of original respondent no.1 (landlord) for eviction on ground of arrears of rent.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against a decree under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
Whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled to relief despite not depositing arrears of rent as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the judgment and decree of the subordinate Court were erroneous and challenged them in writ petition.
Respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable as revision lies under the Act, and that the petitioner failed to deposit arrears.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against a decree under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the Act does not provide for a revision or appeal. However, the tenant must comply with the requirement of depositing arrears under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act to be entitled to relief. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The dispute is in between petitioner-tenant and the respondents-landlords.
The petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Court in favour of the original respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for the period from 1st February 1999 till 31st July 2001.
Though the judgment and decree passed by subordinate Court under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are challenged in this petition and there is controversy whether a petition can be entertained or revision would lie against judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Court.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner has not deposited the arrears of rent as required by Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The original respondent no.1 (landlord) filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. The subordinate Court decreed the suit in favor of the landlord. The petitioner challenged that decree by filing Writ Petition No.3470 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the petition and dismissed it on 7th July 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 12(3)(b)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
