The failure to comply with the requirements of a written and registered tenancy agreement does not render the tenancy void, and the landlord can still adduce evidence to prove the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship.

JUDGMENT :

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard.

2. The respondent has filed civil suit against the petitioners under Section 15 and Section 16 (1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the Act of 1999"). The petitioners filed their written statement and opposed the claim of the respondent. The trial progressed. Issues came to be framed as follows:-

"1. Does plaintiff prove that defendant no. 1 is his tenant?

2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

3. Does plaintiff prove that defendant is in arrears of rent?

4. Whether plaintiff proves that he requires suit premises bonafidely and reasonably?

5. To whom comparative hardship would be caused in case of passing of decree of eviction rather than refusing it?"

3. The parties adduced evidence and cross-examined the witnesses of the other side. While delivering the judgment, the learned trial Judge answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative recording that the plaintiff (present respondent) has failed to prove that the defendants (present petitioners) are his tenants and therefore the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Without adverting to the other issues, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit in view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent had filed appeal under Section 26A of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Section 34 of the Act of 1999 before the District Court to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. This appeal is decided by the impugned judgment.

4. The learned District Judge has reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge on both the issues and has held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendants are tenants of the plaintiff and that the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the civil suit. After recording these findings, the learned District Judge has remitted the matter to the trial Court for delivering judgment on the other issues i.e. Issue Nos. 3 to 5. After remand, the learned trial Judge proceeded with the matter and on request of the plaintiff, permitted him to cross-examine two witnesses.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent - original plaintiff has submitted that the two witnesses examined by the plaintiff after remand have been cross-examined at the behest of the defendants and after recording of evidence was over, arguments were heard by the learned trial Judge and the matter was closed for judgment and then at this stage, this petition is filed. It is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed because of the latches and conduct of the petitioner. Case details showing progress of the suit after remand have been placed on record by the respondent alongwith his submissions. The case details show that after remand, the trial Court had taken up the matter on 30/03/2017, on which date the parties were asked by the learned District Judge to appear before the trial Court, and then after the plaintiff examined the witnesses and amended the plaint, the matter was fixed for arguments on 24/01/2019, 28/01/2019, 02/02/2019, 25/02/2019, 13/03/2019, 18/03/2019, 19/03/2019 and 08/04/2019. This petition is filed on 29/03/2019. Pointing out the above facts, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

6. As far as the merits of the matter are concerned, according to the petitioners - original defendants, learned District Judge has committed an error in recording the finding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and defendants, overlooking the provisions of Section 55 of the Act of 1999. It is submitted that as admittedly there is no written agreement between the plaintiff and defendants regarding tenancy, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the following judg