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 show that water charges/revised water charges by the Corporation is a part of permitted increases and, therefore, section 15(2) of the Act enables the landlord to issue quit notice.

(2) By notice dated 4-6-2001, demand of revised water charges for the period from 1-8-2000 to 31-5-2001 was made. The notices demanding water charges were received on 9-12-2000 and 2-3-2001. Even if these two dates i.e. 912-2000 and 2-3-2001 are taken as due dates, there is default on the part of the tenant for aggregate period of three months and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to issue quit notice to the tenant.

(3) It is not disputed position that in order to carry out the business of selling cloth cut pieces, the petitioner tailor-tenant constructed a permanent structure in the form of mezzanine floor in the tenanted premises without consent of the landlord in writing and in clearcut violation of the building construction rules of the Corporation for which respondent received notice for unauthorised construction. Learned Counsel for the respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have gone through the impugned judgments made by the trial Court and the Appellate Court and having heard Counsel for the rival parties, I find it profitable to reproduce section 15 of the Act.

"15. No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increase. - (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.

(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of ninety days next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(3) No decree for eviction shall be passed by the Court in any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of standard rent and permitted increases if, within a period of ninety days from the date of service of the summons of the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due together with simple interest on the amount of arrears at fifteen per cent per annum; and thereafter continues to pay or tenders in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays cost of the suit as directed by the Court.

(4) Pending the di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document