Bombay High Court Disposes of Civil Revision Applications by Tenants in Eviction Proceeding Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Tenants Raised Issues of Non-Decision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Applications, Delayed Judgment, and Misinterpretation of Section 15 of the Rent Act.

Civil revision applications challenging appellate court's decree of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

The tenants sought setting aside of the eviction decree and remand or dismissal of the eviction suits.

The tenants filed revisions because the Appellate Court dismissed their appeals and allowed landlords' cross-objections, decreeing eviction on all grounds, and failed to consider their applications for additional evidence and delayed judgment.

Trial Court (Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Mahabaleshwar) decreed suits on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement and demolition order, but declined on other grounds. Appellate Court (District Court) dismissed tenants' appeals, allowed landlords' cross-objections, resulting in eviction decree on all grounds. Special Leave Petitions by landlords against interim relief granted in revision were dismissed by Supreme Court.

Whether the Appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction by not deciding tenants' applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Whether the delay of over six months in pronouncing the appellate judgment violates Order 20 Rule 1 CPC and vitiates the decree. Whether the Appellate Court misinterpreted Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 by requiring compliance with Section 15(3) despite landlords' refusal to accept rent via money orders. Whether eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement and demolition order was justified.

The tenants argued that the Appeal Court committed a jurisdictional error by failing to even advert to, much less decide, their applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The tenants contended that the delay of over six months between the conclusion of arguments and pronouncement of the appellate judgment was contrary to Order 20 Rule 1 CPC and vitiated the decree. The tenants submitted that the Appeal Court misinterpreted Section 15 of the Rent Act by requiring compliance with Section 15(3) despite the landlords' refusal to accept rent tendered through money orders; they argued that the tenant could always prove readiness and willingness to pay rent. From the notice determining tenancy, pleadings, and depositions, it was apparent that eviction was sought to demolish the suit premises and erect a new building.

Rule and interim relief was granted in these Civil Revision Applications by speaking order dated 4 February 2014. The Appeal Court, in making the impugned judgment and decree dated 4 July 2013, has not dealt with or disposed of the said applications. The interpretation is contrary to both, the text as well as the rulings of this Court on the subject.

The landlords filed eviction suits against tenants in the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Mahabaleshwar) under Sections 15, 16(1)(g), 16(1)(k), and 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Trial Court decreed suits on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement and demolition order on 4 July 2011, but denied eviction on other grounds. Tenants appealed to District Court, and landlords filed cross-objections. The Appellate Court dismissed tenants' appeals and allowed cross-objections on 4 July 2013, decreeing eviction on all grounds. Tenants filed Civil Revision Applications before Bombay High Court, and interim relief was granted on 4 February 2014. Landlords' Special Leave Petitions against interim order were dismissed by Supreme Court on 2 May 2014, with a request for expeditious disposal. The High Court took up the revisions for final disposal.

• Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 15, 16(1)(g), 16(1)(k), 16(1)(b)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27, Order 20 Rule 1