Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to a shop premises let out for a photo studio in Digras, Yavatmal. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction and possession against the petitioner tenant on grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement. The landlord claimed that after a family partition in 2001, the shop came to his share and the monthly rent was increased to Rs.1500. The tenant paid rent regularly until December 2008 but defaulted from January 2009 to May 2011. A demand notice dated 21.05.2011 was refused by the tenant. The tenant contested the suit, denying the landlord's ownership, asserting that he had paid pagdi and rent to the landlord's brother Dr. Arun Sawane, and challenging the bonafide need. He also raised the statutory defense under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, arguing that the suit was not tenable as it was filed before the expiration of 90 days after the demand notice. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 17.10.2013, rejected all defenses and decreed eviction. It held that the landlord proved his title and rent default, and that the bonafide need existed. On the issue of Section 15(2), the Trial Court interpreted that the requirement is to give 90 days' notice to the tenant, but it does not render the suit untenable if filed prior to 90 days; the crucial point is that the suit should not be disposed of within 90 days to allow the tenant time to make payment. The Trial Court directed the tenant to deposit arrears with interest. The tenant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on 06.03.2017. The District Court reversed the finding on bonafide need, observing that the landlord resided in Akola and had agricultural land, and his wife's business plan was not proved. However, the District Court upheld the eviction decree under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, noting that the tenant had failed to deposit arrears or pay rent regularly even after 90 days of receipt of suit summons, which entitled the landlord to a decree for ejectment. The tenant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, raising the sole ground that the suit was premature under Section 15(2) because it was filed within 90 days of the demand notice. The High Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 24.07.2026, and pronounced judgment on 04.08.2026. The provided excerpt does not include the final decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Suit Premature - Section 15(2), 15(3) Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Petitioner tenant argued that suit for possession was not tenable until expiry of 90 days after demand notice, as per Section 15(2); lower courts held that the 90-day period is not a bar to filing suit, and that tenant's failure to deposit arrears within 90 days of suit summons entitles landlord to decree under Section 15(3) - High Court considered the issue and reserved judgment (Paras 7,10,12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not tenable if filed before the expiration of 90 days after the demand notice as mandated by Section 15(2) of the Act
Law Points
- Section 15 Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 90-day notice period
- suit tenability
- bonafide requirement
- default in rent
- eviction decree
