Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the landlord, Anant Tulshiramji Bajaj, against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad, in Rent Appeal No.10 of 2011. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's decree of possession in favor of the landlord in Rent Suit No.20/2006. The suit was filed by the landlord in respect of a shop premises bearing Municipal House No.4/3/42 (CTS No.4395) at Machhali Khadak, Aurangabad, which was let out to the tenant, Sunil Gajanan Rasne, on a monthly rent of Rs.751/-. The landlord alleged that the tenant was a willful defaulter, having not paid rent for 36 months prior to the statutory notice dated 29-9-2005. The landlord sent a notice of termination of tenancy by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD) and also by certificate of posting. The RPAD notice was returned unclaimed, but the copy sent by certificate of posting was not returned. The landlord claimed that the notice was duly served. The tenant contested the suit, claiming that he had sent rent by money orders which were refused by the landlord, and that the notice was not served. The trial court decreed the suit for possession and arrears of rent. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the landlord failed to prove service of notice and that the tenant was not a willful defaulter. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence and found that the tenant's claim of sending money orders was not supported by any documentary evidence, and the tenant failed to prove payment of rent. The court also held that the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to notices sent by certificate of posting, and since the copy sent by certificate of posting was not returned, it must be presumed that the notice was served. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree, allowing the revision application with costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Willful Default - Section 12(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Eviction on ground of default - Landlord claimed tenant failed to pay rent for 36 months - Tenant alleged payment by money orders which were refused - Court held that tenant's claim of sending money orders was not supported by evidence and tenant failed to prove payment - Held that tenant was a willful defaulter (Paras 5-8). B) Rent Control - Service of Notice - Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Notice sent by RPAD returned unclaimed, but copy sent by certificate of posting not returned - Court held that presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to certificate of posting as well - Held that notice was duly served (Paras 9-10). C) Rent Control - Appellate Court's Interference - Reversal of findings of fact - Appellate court reversed trial court's decree of possession without properly appreciating evidence - Held that appellate court erred in ignoring the tenant's failure to prove payment and the presumption of service of notice (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant was a willful defaulter in payment of rent and whether the notice of termination of tenancy was duly served on the tenant.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the judgment of the appellate court, and restored the trial court's decree of possession and arrears of rent with costs.
Law Points
- Rent control
- willful default
- service of notice
- certificate of posting
- presumption of service
- burden of proof
- tenant's obligation to pay rent
- landlord's right to eviction
