2015 Supreme(Bom) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY at Nagpur
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Dinanath Sharma – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1639 of 2014
Decided on: 12-02-2015

Headnote:Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 15(1) Eviction of tenant. - According to provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act, as long as tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay amount of standard rent and permitted increases, landlord cannot dispossess him from his premises on the basis of arrears of rent. - Under provisions of Section 15(1) of the said Act as long as tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay amount of standard rent and permitted increases, the landlord would not be entitled to recover possession of the premises on the ground of arrears of rent. It is well-settled that under Rent Control legislation if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the statute then he must strictly comply with requirement of said statute. In Atmaram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211 in para 19 it was observed as under :

       "19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the Rent Control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision."

       It is to be noted that the expression used in Section 15(3) of the said Act is arrears "then due". In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bhimsen Gupta (supra), the expression "lawfully payable" as used in Section 11(1 )(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, l983 was considered. Similarly in Kamala Bakshi (supra) the expression "arrears of rent legally recoverable, as appearing in Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were under consideration.

       Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 15(3) Eviction of tenant Validity of. - Since tenant was failure to comply with demand as made by notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Act, tenant was held rightly liable to be evicted on basis of arrears of rent. - As regards the submission that by complying with the directions issued under provisions of Order XV-A Rule 1 of the Code the tenant was not liable to be evicted, it is to be noted that under the provisions of Section 15(3) of the said Act within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons, the tenant is required to pay in Court the amount of standard rent and permitted increases along with simple interest on the amount of arrears at 15% p. a. The order passed under provisions of Order XV-A Rule 1 of the Code is dated 18.8.2010, while the suit was filed on 8.8.2008. Hence, after period of 90 days from service of summons the requirements of Section 15(3) of the said Act were not duly complied with. It is also necessary to note that under provisions of Order XV-A Rule 3 of the Code, deposit of amounts under this provision do not have the effect of prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and its receipt by the plaintiff cannot be treated as a waiver of notice of termination. In the light of this clear provision, the claim of the plaintiff landlord cannot be prejudiced by such deposit.

       It is also to be noted that provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act require the tenant to voluntarily deposit the amounts referred to therein and it is not for the landlord in a suit for eviction to call upon the tenant to deposit all arrears after such suit is filed. On the contrary the same would reflect on the conduct of the tenant in firstly not depositing the arrears as required under Section 15(3) of the said Act and secondly, such deposit at the instance of the landlord cannot have the effect of prejudicing the case of the landlord himself. On the contrary, accepting said submission would have the effect of granting premium to the tenant who is in arrears of rent. Hence, it is held that in the facts of the present case due compliance with provisions of Order XV-A, Rule 1 of the said Code would not have the effect of wiping out the arrears of rent so as to avoid the decree for eviction.