Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Gorakh Rambhau Chothve and Jalinder Rambhau Chothve, were defendants in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondents, Vilas Eknath Kadam and Satish Eknath Kadam, who owned Municipal House No.24 in Igatpuri. The suit premises, a rear room, were let to defendant No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.15 plus education cess. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1 did not pay rent from 1 January 1983, had sublet the premises to defendant No.2, and was not residing there. A demand notice dated 15 July 1983 was sent to defendant No.1 at the address of Shaikh Abdul Rajak Ghulam Mohd., where he was actually residing, and was refused. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 1983 for possession and arrears. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the notice invalid and rejecting the grounds of default and subletting. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, Nashik, which allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's decree, and decreed the suit, ordering possession, arrears of Rs.115.50 plus education cess, and future damages at Rs.15.60 per month. The defendants challenged this decree in the High Court. The High Court examined the validity of the demand notice and the applicability of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It held that the notice was validly served at the address where defendant No.1 was actually residing, and his refusal was proved by the postman's evidence. The court rejected the defendants' belated plea of yearly tenancy, noting that the tenancy was pleaded and proved as monthly. It held that Section 12(3)(a) applied because the tenancy was monthly, there was no dispute as to standard rent, and arrears exceeded six months. The court found no perversity in the Appellate Court's findings and dismissed the writ petition, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Service of Demand Notice - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Validity of notice served at address where tenant was actually residing - Held that where tenant is not residing at suit premises, notice served at his actual residence is valid; refusal by tenant witnessed by postman constitutes valid service (Paras 10-14). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Monthly Tenancy - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act - Applicability - Held that where tenancy is monthly and arrears exceed six months without dispute as to standard rent, Section 12(3)(a) applies; plea of yearly tenancy cannot be raised without pleading and proof (Paras 15-18). C) Rent Control - Eviction - Arrears of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act - Condition for applicability - Held that Section 12(3)(b) applies only if none of the three conditions (monthly tenancy, no dispute as to standard rent, arrears exceeding six months) exist; in present case all conditions satisfied, hence Section 12(3)(a) applies (Para 17). D) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Findings - Interference in Writ Jurisdiction - Held that findings of fact by Appellate Court based on evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court erred in decreeing eviction on ground of arrears of rent despite alleged invalid service of demand notice and applicability of Section 12(3)(b) instead of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; decree of Appellate Court confirmed; petitioners directed to deliver possession and pay arrears and future damages as per decree.
Law Points
- Service of demand notice
- Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act
- Monthly tenancy
- Refusal of notice
- Postman's evidence
- Yearly tenancy plea
- Writ jurisdiction interference
