Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bainabai and Devidas Nagdive, were tenants of a single-room premises owned by the respondent, Sunil Jambhulkar. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement for his own residence. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed eviction. The petitioners challenged this in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The High Court examined the facts: the arrears of rent of Rs.648 for the period 01.11.1999 to 30.10.2002 were claimed; summons were served on 15.03.2003; the amount was deposited on 11.08.2003, beyond the 90-day period under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court held that this constituted default. Regarding service of notice, the court noted that notice was served on one of the co-tenants and an acknowledgment was produced; since both resided in the same house, service on one was sufficient. On bonafide requirement, the court observed that the suit premises consisted of only one room, and the landlord's need for his own residence was genuine, even if he was currently living in his mother's house. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Eviction - Tenants deposited arrears of rent beyond 90 days from service of summons - Held that such delay constitutes default, justifying eviction (Paras 2-4).
B) Rent Control - Service of Notice - Sufficiency - Notice served on one co-tenant residing in same premises - Acknowledgment produced - Held that service on one co-tenant is sufficient service on all (Para 4).
C) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Landlord's need for residence - Suit premises of one room - Landlord residing in mother's house - Held that landlord's requirement for own premises is bonafide (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction decree based on default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement of landlord is sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Eviction decree upheld.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent within 90 days under Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Service of notice on one co-tenant sufficient
- Bonafide requirement of landlord for residence
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 158
WRIT PETITION NO. 3102 OF 2008
Shri V.D.Dhobe for Petitioner, Shri A.V.Bhide for Respondent
Smt. Bainabai Wd/o Atmaram Nagdive and Devidas s/o Atmaram Nagdive
Sunil s/o Laxmanrao Jambhulkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent eviction decrees passed by trial court and first appellate court.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (tenants) sought to set aside the eviction decree and dismissal of the landlord's suit.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of default in rent payment and bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Previous Decisions
Trial court and first appellate court decreed eviction in favor of the landlord.
Issues
Whether the petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Whether the notice of eviction was properly served on both tenants.
Whether the landlord's requirement of the suit premises for his bonafide residence was established.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that notice of eviction was not served on both tenants and that the landlord's bonafide requirement was not established as he was residing in his mother's house.
Respondent argued that the arrears were deposited beyond 90 days, service on one co-tenant was sufficient, and the landlord needed the premises for his own residence.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement are not perverse and do not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. Deposit of arrears beyond 90 days from service of summons constitutes default under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Service of notice on one co-tenant residing in the same premises is sufficient. The landlord's need for his own residential premises is bonafide.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the Courts below are concurrent in holding that the petitioners-defendants were defaulter in making payment of rent and that the landlord requires the suit premises for his bonafide use of residence.
The amount of arrears of rent was deposited on 11.08.2003 i.e. after the period of 90 days.
Undisputedly, both of them were residing in the same house and the service of notice upon one of the petitioners has been established by producing an acknowledgment.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for eviction in the trial court, which decreed eviction. The tenants appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The tenants then filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act: 15(3)
