ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submission before me,

(1) Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not permit default in payment of water charges as a ground for eviction of a tenant as the amount of water charges cannot be the constituent of the permitted increases. The notice dated 4-6-2001 claiming arrears of water charges for the period from 1-8-2000 till 31-5-2001 is defective because there is a claim in respect of future demand for water charges and section 15 of the Act contemplates only the amounts due.

(2) That the finding recorded by the Appellate Court holding that the petitioner/tenant has acted in violation of section 16(1 )(b) of the Act is incorrect and illegal because the petitioner sold cloth cut pieces in his shop and that is integral part of business of tailoring.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents made the following submissions:

(1) Section 15(2) will have to be read with section 7(8) and section 12 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. A harmonious construction of these provisions read with section 15 of the Act will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document