Bombay High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Against Eviction Decree in Rent Control Case — Default in Payment of Rent Confirmed. Tenant's Failure to Pay Arrears Despite Demand Notice Under Section 15(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Leads to Confirmation of Eviction by Trial and Appellate Courts.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 76
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the applicants (original defendants/tenants) challenging the judgment and decree dated 4th November 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in Appeal No.53 of 2013, and the judgment and decree dated 25th October 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai (Bandra Branch), in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.258/528 of 2007. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs/landlords) for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The High Court, upon perusal of the record, noted that a demand notice under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was issued on 14th February 2007 and received by the defendants. The defendants failed to pay the arrears within the statutory period. The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the courts below. The civil revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 15(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The landlord issued a demand notice under Section 15(1) on 14th February 2007 for arrears of rent. The tenant failed to pay the arrears within the statutory period. The Trial Court decreed eviction, and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The High Court, in civil revision, found no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision. Held that the concurrent findings of default are based on evidence and do not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, confirming the eviction decree on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, is legal and valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Default in payment of rent
  • Demand notice under Section 15(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • 1999
  • Eviction decree confirmed
  • Civil revision dismissed
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 322

Civil Revision Application No. 562 of 2025

2025-12-02

Madhav J. Jamdar, J.

2025:BHC-AS:52875

Mr. Jaydeep Deo i/b Onkar Y. Gawade, for the Applicants; Ms. Shagufta Q. Qureshi, for the Respondents.

Sushilaben Harilal Joshi (deleted since deceased) 1(a) Jyoti Harsukhrai Joshi & Ors.

Triveniben Bhikhalal Busa & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Application challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, confirming the eviction decree on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent.

Remedy Sought

The applicants (tenants) sought to set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and Appellate Court which decreed eviction.

Filing Reason

The applicants challenged the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and the consequent eviction decree.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court (Small Causes Court, Mumbai) decreed the suit on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The Appellate Bench confirmed the said decree.

Issues

Whether the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent are perverse or illegal warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

Submissions/Arguments

Mr. Jaydeep Deo, learned Counsel for the Applicants, argued in support of the revision. Ms. Shagufta Q. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the Respondents, opposed the revision.

Ratio Decidendi

The concurrent findings of the courts below regarding default in payment of rent are based on evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with such findings.

Judgment Excerpts

Perusal of the record shows that the Demand Notice under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been issued on 14th February 2007. The learned Trial Court has decreed the Suit on the ground of default in payment of arrears of the rent and the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the said decree.

Procedural History

The respondents filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.258/528 of 2007 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai (Bandra Branch) for eviction on the ground of default. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 25th October 2013. The applicants appealed to the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which dismissed the appeal on 4th November 2025. The applicants then filed the present Civil Revision Application in the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 15(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Writ Petitions Concerning Denial of Waiver Benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2017. Petitioners challenged endorsements rejecting claims for waiver of penalty and interest under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Against Eviction Decree in Rent Control Case — Default in Payment of Rent Confirmed. Tenant's Failure to Pay Arrears Despite Demand Notice Under Section 15(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Leads to...