Increase in rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not automatic but requires a formal demand by the landlord; failure to do so prior to suit renders the claim unmaintainable.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard. Admit. By consent of the learned Counsel for both the sides, the matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. Since the facts in all Revisions are similar, these Revisions are decided by common Judgment. For convenience, the learned Counsels chose to refer to the facts of Civil Revision Application No. 3/2022.

3. The Applicants herein are the tenants of the Non-applicants/ landlords. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as tenants and landlords respectively. The landlords have filed suit for possession under Sec. 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1999'). The case of the landlords is that, the tenants are occupying suit shops since prior to 2000. Their relationship as landlord and tenant is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1999 with effect from 1/4/2000. The tenants are liable to pay rent and permitted increase at the rate of 4% per annum on rent of 250/- per month for the period from 1/4/2000 till 31/12/2020 along? with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the arrears of rent which includes the permitted increase in terms of Sec. 7(14) read with Sec. 11 of the Act of 1999.

4. The tenants have filed application (Exhibit-9) for dismissal of suit on the ground that the suit cannot lie against them. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati vide order dtd. 17/12/2021 has rejected the application mainly on the ground that landlords had issued notice to the tenants demanding payment of rent and permitted increase and that the tenants have to meet the demand within 90 days of the receipt of notice in terms of Sec. 15(2) of the Act of 1999 and further that the tenants failed to pay the arrears of rent/permitted increase for the period from 1/4/2000 till 31/8/2020, despite receiving the notice.

5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of application (Exhibit-9), the tenants have approached this Court under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short, 'the Code').

6. During the course of argument, the question arose whether the application filed by the tenants is an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code or is application simplicitor for dismissal of suit.

7. Mr. R. M. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the tenants submits that though the application is titled "Application for dismissal of suit", the averments made therein coupled with the prayer would show that the plea put-forth by the tenants is that the suit is barred by law, and therefore, is not maintainable in terms of Sec. 15 of the Act of 1999. He submits that it is well settled that the title of the application and further the absence of provisions, viz - Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code in the application, by itself will not change the substance of the application. It is the substance and not the form which has to be seen.

8. Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the landlords submits that though the nomenclature of an application may not be material and the substance is to be seen, but then the parties are duty-bound to refer to the appropriate provision and further to disclose the purpose of filing the application. In that sense, if one reads the application filed by the tenants, the purpose of filing application is dismissal of suit and not the rejection of plaint.

9. Mr. Chandurkar, has placed reliance upon the case of Jeet Mohinder Singh V/s Harminder Singh and Another, (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 26. wherein the Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 as under :

"6. Though the nomenclature of an application is really not material and the substance is to be seen, yet it cannot be said that a party shall be permitted to indicate any provision and thereafter co