Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Joseph Anthony (since deceased) through his legal heir – Appellant
Versus
Rukmini Krishna Turbhekar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is invoked to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 26 February 2016 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.375/543 of 2003. The Small Causes Court has decreed the Suit on the ground of arrears of rent by rejecting the grounds of illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structure and bonafide requirement. The Applicants/Defendants filed Appeal No.222 of 2016 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, which has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 5 May 2022, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application.
2. Since all other grounds for eviction have been rejected and the Suit is decreed only on the ground of arrears of rent, it needs to be seen whether the Defendants were in arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the Suit by not complying with the notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (the MRC Act) served by the Plaintiff- landlord and whether the Defendants failed to avail the second opportunity of depositing the rent, interest and
Timely application and deposit of rent, even if slightly delayed due to holidays, fulfill statutory requirements preventing eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Tenant must comply with statutory deposit requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, including interest and costs, to avoid eviction.
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.
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.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
A tenant's failure to communicate rent deposits and respond to rent demands constitutes default, justifying eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
The judgment establishes that repeated defaults in rent payment by a tenant, without timely applications for extension, can lead to eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Rent Act, requiring the tenant to deposit the whole rent and comply with the timing ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
