Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by the tenants challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.133/2003 and the appellate court in Civil Appeal No.137/2008. The suit property, comprising Survey Nos.3616 and 3814 with construction and open space, was used for commercial purposes. The landlord, Sushilabai Govindlal Wani, sought eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging that the tenants had not used the premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause. The trial court decreed eviction, and the District Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the tenants failed to provide any evidence of reasonable cause for the non-user. The court emphasized that the burden was on the tenant to show reasonable cause, which was not discharged. The revision was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User - Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had not used the suit premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, holding that the tenant failed to prove reasonable cause for non-user. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's non-user of the suit premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause justifies eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The revision is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court and the appellate court are upheld. The eviction decree stands confirmed.
Law Points
- Non-user of commercial premises for six months
- Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999
- Eviction decree upheld
- Reasonable cause not established
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 21
Civil Revision Application No.199 of 2013
Shri. S.P. Shah, Advocate, holding for Shri. Manish V. Bhamre, Advocate, for petitioners; Shri. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for respondent
Shankarlal Ramsay Sharma (Marwadi) and others
Sushilabai Govindlal Wani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against concurrent decrees of eviction on ground of non-user of commercial premises.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (tenants) sought to set aside the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The landlord filed suit for eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on the ground that the tenants had not used the suit premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction; appellate court dismissed tenant's appeal.
Issues
Whether the tenants' non-user of the suit premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause justifies eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that there was reasonable cause for non-user, but failed to provide evidence.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, a landlord is entitled to eviction if the tenant has not used the premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause. The burden of proving reasonable cause lies on the tenant. In this case, the tenant failed to discharge that burden, and the concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld.
Judgment Excerpts
The decree of recovery of possession of property used for commercial purpose is given by the trial Court on the ground of non-user which falls under section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Both the sides are heard.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.133/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dondaicha, seeking eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial court decreed eviction. The tenant appealed to the District Court in Civil Appeal No.137/2008, which was dismissed. The tenant then filed the present Civil Revision Application No.199/2013 in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(n)
