Back
G.S.SINGHVI, AFTAB ALAM, B.N.AGARWAL
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
The key point of this judgement is that in proceedings involving eviction under rent control legislation, the court has the authority to stay the execution of an eviction order on certain terms, including directing the tenant to pay a higher monthly amount than the contractual rent. The court emphasizes that such conditions should be reasonable and not punitive, and that the amount fixed for stay should be proportionate to market rent or other relevant considerations (!) (!) . Additionally, the judgement clarifies that the tenancy is considered terminated upon the passing and affirmation of the eviction decree, and the tenant's liability for rent shifts to the market rate from that point onward (!) (!) . It also highlights that if the appeal or revision is ultimately successful, the tenant is entitled to recover any excess payments made during the pendency of the proceedings (!) . Overall, the decision underscores the court's discretion to impose fair and balanced conditions while safeguarding the rights of both landlords and tenants during litigation.
JUDGMENT
Aftab Alam, J. —
1. Leave granted.
2. The Government of Maharashtra, the appellant before us, is in occupation of an area of 9000 sq. ft. (11,050 sq. ft. as per the affidavit-in- reply filed by the appellant) comprising the sixth floor of a building on a monthly rental of Rs. 5236.58/-, besides water charges at the rate of Rs. 515.35/- per month. The suit premises, used for housing the office of the Registrar Co-operative Societies is situate at Fort, opposite GPO, (near C.S.T. Railway Station) in the heart of the city of Mumbai. The appellant is in occupation of the suit premises since 1966. At that time the building belonged to the Maharaja of Travancore. Respondents 1 to 3 purchased it under a deed of assignment dated May 5, 1982 and stepped into the shoes of the landlord.
3. The appellant suffered a decree of ejectment passed by the Court of Small Causes on June 30, 2003 in RAE & R Suit No. 1233/3730 of 1986 on grounds of (i) default in payment of taxes and water charges as stipulated under section 13(3)(a) and (ii) reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords, respondents 1 to 3 for their own use and occupation in terms of section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hote
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
