1. Eviction suit under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — grounds of nuisance, illegal subletting, and non-user of premises for the purpose for which they were let. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 556
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Nilesh Laxmichand and Another – Appellants
Versus
Shantaben Purushottam Kakad (Since Deceased) By Lrs – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4268 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mayil Samy K., Mr. Nihangam R. Maurya, Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mayil Samy K., Mr. Nihangam R. Maurya, Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When any of the grounds for eviction of tenant is established, the eviction suit has to be decreed.
When any of the grounds for eviction of tenant is established, the eviction suit has to be decreed.
Subject
Eviction - Non-User
Act Referred
Headnote
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(n) - Eviction on ground of non-user - The appellate court and the High Court in revision, finding ground of non-user established - Supreme Court also recording that appellants could not have used the premises in absence of any registration for the relevant period - Eviction rightly decreed. (Para 29, 31)
Fact of the case:
The original RAE Suit was filed by one Shantaben Purushottam Kakad for eviction of tenant-appellant from the rented premises.
The suit was dismissed by the trial court.
The first appellate court allowed the appeal which has been affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the identity of the tenant, existence of illegal subletting to third parties, and whether premises were used for the leased purpose preceding the suit. (Para 3 , 14 )
3. Nuisance and subletting were not proved due to insufficient evidence and vague pleadings, but non-user was established via registration gaps and lack of actual use evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Non-user under Section 16(1)(n) requires continuous non-use for six months immediately preceding the suit; registration alone does not prove actual use of the premises. (Para 19 , 20 , 29 )
5. Appeal dismissed — eviction decree upheld solely on the ground of non-user. (Para 31 )
6. What are the essential elements to establish eviction on the ground of non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
The premises must have been let for a particular purpose, there must be non-user by the tenant for that purpose without reasonable cause, and such non-user must be for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. (Para 19 )
7. Does the possession of a registration certificate under the Shops and Establishments Act prove actual use of the premises for the purpose of tenancy?
No. While registration is required for lawful conduct of business, it is not sufficient to establish actual use. Actual use must be proven through other evidence such as electricity bills, payment of wages, or business transaction records. (Para 29 )
8. What standard of evidence is required to sustain an eviction decree on the ground of nuisance or annoyance to neighboring occupiers?
Eviction on this ground requires specific evidence of the scale and duration of the nuisance, ideally supported by testimony from adjoining occupiers or the landlord, rather than solely on the testimony of a non-resident relative. (Para 15 )
9. Can a court find illegal subletting if the evidence points to a different person than the one specifically alleged in the pleadings?
No. If the pleading specifically alleges subletting to a third party, a finding of subletting cannot be sustained against another person if the specific allegations against the third party are not proved. (Para 16 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 29 of 2018. By the impugned Order, the Revision Application filed by the appellants challenging the Order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 19 of 2013 has been dismissed. Thereby the result is that the suit filed by the respondents for eviction of the appellants under Section 16(i)(c), 16(i)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), has been decreed against the appellants.
2. The original RAE Suit No. 1681 of 2006 was filed by one Shantaben Purushottam Kakad (the respondents in this appeal are the legal representatives of the original aforesaid plaintiff). The rented premises consisted of a shop on the ground floor of the building. The case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is as follows (parties will be referred to in the position before the Trial Court):
The first defendant took the premises on rent for the purpose of carrying out business of bookshop and he, the first defendant, has, since the inception, been carrying on the business of bookshop in the name and style “Chetna Book Store”. In about July, 2005, the first defendant suddenly closed down the business of bookstore, and since then, is not using the premises for more than six months prior to the suit, for the purpose for which it was let and that too without reasonable or any cause. It was further stated that the first defendant had sublet the premises to third party. As regards the ground of nuisance, it was stated that the defendants have started business of preparation and sale of foodstuff from the suit premises which does not have suitable layout or ventilation for the same. It is further stated that as a result, there was pollution and smell and smoke and this caused lot of nuisance and annoyance for the plaintiff an old landlady and other occupants of the building. This business is now closed down. It is further stated that the business of garments was also started and closed down and that the defendants have now given the suit premises to someone else. It is, on these allegations, the suit came to be filed.
3. A Written Statement came to be filed by the appellants. The first appellant is actually the son of the second appellant. Their case is, inter alia, as follows:
In the year 1971, the second defendant, who is the father of the first defendant, approached the original landlord, the husband of the original plaintiff, for taking the suit premises on rent. On finalisation of negotiations, the premises were taken on rent somewhere in the year 1971. At that time, the first defendant was a minor aged five years. The premises were taken for commercial/business purpose to be carried on by the second defendant but the second defendant, for certain spiritual reason and on the advice of the Astrologer, obtained receipt in the name of the first defendant. The rent receipts continued to be issued in the name of the first defendant. After obtaining the building on rent, the second defendant used the rented premises for selling books in the name and style “Chetna Book Store”. Second defendant obtained necessary licence under The Shops and Establishments Act. The second defendant was not able to get good business and sufficient earnings. He started business of readymade garments for some time. That also did not succeed. Thereafter, he started the business in the name and style “Shree Krishna Food Corner”. However, though he applied, the Health Department did not issue the licence. The business in fast food was stopped and again the business of selling books and stationery was continued. The case of sub-tenancy was denied, so also the case relating to nuisance.”
4. The Trial Court relied upon the deposition of PW1 to find that he admitted that he did not know when the tenancy was created, whether any negoti
