SANDEEP V. MARNE
Haresh Panchal Alias Harish Vallabhbhai Naroliwala – Appellant
Versus
Leela Chandrakant Naik – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is invoked for setting up a challenge to the Decree dated 15 December 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court R.A.E. and R. Suit No. 548/1331 of 1993. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has dismissed Appeal No. 37 of 2009 confirming the Decree of the Small Causes Court.
2. Plaintiff instituted R.A.E. and R. Suit No. 548/1331 of 1993 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, unauthorised subletting, erecting permanent construction and nuisance/annoyance. The suit was filed against Defendant No. 1, who is the original Tenant. The Applicant, who claims to be son of Defendant No. 1-Tenant, was impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit with an allegation that the first Defendant-Tenant has unauthorizedly sublet the suit premises in favour of the Applicant/Defendant No.2. When the suit summons was served, Defendant No. 1 failed to appear in the suit nor participated in its decision. The suit was defended by Applicant/Defendant No.2 by filing written statement and by leading
Vasant Ganesh Damle Vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar & Anr.
Ganpat Laddha Vs. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde
Vasant Mahadev Pandit & Anr. Vs. Zaibunnisa Abdul Sattar & Ors.
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
The court upheld the eviction decree based on default in rent and unlawful subletting, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent control provisions.
A valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act must specify the amount due and be addressed to the tenant; failure to do so invalidates eviction proceedings.
A valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is essential before eviction on grounds of rent default; failure to comply renders the suit non-maintainable.
Unauthorized subletting by a tenant constitutes a continuing breach, allowing landlords to seek eviction within the limitation period as long as the breach continues.
The court established that a landlord-tenant relationship suffices for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, regardless of ownership, emphasizing unlawful subletting and rent default as gr....
Tenant must comply with statutory deposit requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, including interest and costs, to avoid eviction.
Important Point : The court upheld the eviction decree based on unlawful subletting and unauthorized structural alterations, interpreting lease provisions to restrict successive subletting without la....
A tenant in default for over six months without disputing the rent is subject to eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Point of law: When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.