Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar (Applicant/Defendant No.2) challenging the judgment and decree dated 22 January 2026 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed Appeal No.302 of 2019 and confirmed the decree of the Trial Court dated 6 July 2019 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.643/1132 of 2008. The suit premises is Room No. R/4, House No.411/Back, Ground floor, Kadri Mansion, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025. The building was originally owned by earlier owners who inducted late Ballaram Hullaji as a monthly tenant. Respondent No.1/Plaintiff, M/s. Ish Homes Private Limited, acquired ownership of the land and building via four Deeds of Conveyance dated 30 September 2006 and 10 October 2006. After acquisition, the Plaintiff found Defendant No.2 in possession of the suit premises and alleged that he was an unlawful sublettee. The Plaintiff also alleged default in payment of rent and issued a notice dated 24 February 2007 demanding arrears. Upon failure to pay, the Plaintiff instituted the suit in the Court of Small Causes impleading the heirs of Ballaram Hullaji as Defendant No.1 and Ratnadeep Shankar Narkar as Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement claiming that Defendant No.1 had assigned and transferred tenancy rights to him in November 1995 with the consent of the erstwhile owners, but due to disputes and appointment of a Court Receiver, the transfer could not be documented. He also claimed that rent was always paid by him and that after the notice, arrears were paid. The Trial Court framed issues on unlawful subletting, default in payment of rent, and wastage. After evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit on grounds of unlawful subletting and default. Defendant No.2 appealed, and during the appeal, he filed applications at Exhibits-22, 23, and 71 for producing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The Appellate Court rejected those applications and dismissed the appeal. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the findings of the courts below were perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error. The High Court held that the Plaintiff had proved that Defendant No.2 was in possession without any right, and the burden shifted to Defendant No.2 to prove lawful induction, which he failed to do. The claim of assignment of tenancy rights was not supported by any documentary evidence or consent of the landlord. The ground of default was also proved as rent was not paid from 2006. The rejection of additional evidence applications was proper as the documents were not shown to be relevant or not available despite due diligence. The High Court dismissed the revision application, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Unlawful Subletting - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove subletting, but once possession of a third party is shown, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove lawful induction - The tenant failed to prove consent of the landlord or assignment of tenancy rights - Held that the Trial Court correctly decreed eviction on ground of unlawful subletting (Paras 1-25). B) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Arrears of Rent - The tenant did not pay rent from 2006 despite notice, and payment after notice does not cure default - Held that the ground of default was also proved (Paras 1-25). C) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - The Appellate Court rejected applications for additional evidence as the documents were not shown to be relevant or not available despite due diligence - Held that the rejection was proper (Paras 1-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court erred in confirming the decree of eviction on grounds of unlawful subletting and default in payment of rent, and whether the rejection of applications for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the judgment and decree of the Appellate Bench and the Trial Court, thereby upholding the eviction of the Applicant from the suit premises.
Law Points
- Unlawful subletting
- Default in payment of rent
- Assignment of tenancy rights
- Consent of landlord
- Burden of proof
- Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
- Additional evidence in appeal
