Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant is bad-in-law or whether the notice would be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons.

The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002 till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month. In spite of the service of the notice, the respondent-tenant did not pay the rent. A suit was, therefore, instituted by the landlady against the tenant seeking recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial Court decreed the suit of the landlady and directed the respondent to hand over the possession under the provisions of Section 15 thereof. The trial Court rejected the claim of the landlady for possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent-tenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. A cross appeal was filed by the landlady seeking possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appeal filed by the respondent-tenant was allowed by the first appellate Court. It was held by the first appellate Court that the notice issued by the landlady under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 was bad-in-law inasmuch as the land-lady had sought the rent at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month when the admitted rent between the parties was rupees two hundred per month only. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 22/03/2012 in the instant petition.

Shri Dhoble, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the first appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court and holding that the notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was bad-in-law. The learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh), 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and another) and 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 156 (Shriniwas Babulal v. Ramakant s/o Shivnarayan Jaiswal) to substantiate his submission that the notice would not be bad-in-law and the respondent-tenant had an option to pay the arrears of admitted rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per month within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. According to the learned counsel, even the admitted rent was not paid by the tenant within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 or within ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. It is submitted that the first appellate Court erroneously relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to answer the issue in regard to the validity of notice in favour of the tenant, without considering the other decisions which were holding the field.

Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported the judgment passed by the first appellate Court and submitted that the first appellate Court rightly considered the judgment reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice of demand was not issued in accordance with law and the suit seeking a decree of recovery