A landlord cannot seek eviction on arrears of rent if the statutory notice has not followed the deadline provision while unauthorized constructions can justify eviction if they are proven to cause destruction or damage.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Applicants-tenants have invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 1 January 2018 passed by District Court, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 720 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29 September 2011 passed by Additional Small Causes Court, Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 668 of 1999. The suit filed by the Plaintiffs-landlords has been decreed on the ground of arrears of rent, destruction/injury to the suit premises and erection of permanent structure inside and outside the suit premises. The decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

(A) FACTS

2. Shop admeasuring 150 square feet situated on ground floor of the building at CTS No. 545 Sadashiv Peth, Laxmi Road, Pune, are the ‘suit premises’. The house property bearing No. 545 was originally owned by Shri Sarjerao Jadhav, who had inducted Defendants' father as a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiffs-landlords purchased the house property No. 545 from the previous owner on 17 December 1979 and became landlord of Defendants. Defendants operate business in the name of 'Dev Sport' in the suit premises. Defendants had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 610 of 1988 in Small Causes Court, Pune for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit premises. By order dated 3 February 1992, the Small Causes Court fixed Rs. 88.30/- as standard rent in respect of the suit premises. According to Plaintiffs- landlords, in addition to the standard rent of Rs.88.30/-, Defendants are also liable to pay other permitted increases and education cess.

3. Plaintiffs-landlords filed Suit No. 558 of 1999 seeking eviction of Defendants, which was withdrawn on 6 October 1999 with liberty to file a fresh suit. It appears that Plaintiffs-landlords dispatched Notice dated 25 October 1999 on Defendants alleging arrears of rent from 1 January 1991. However before completion of period of 30 days from the date of service of Notice, Plaintiffs-landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No. 668 of 1999 on 3 November 1999 under the provisions of BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (Bombay Rent Act, 1947) on the grounds of (i) commission of breach of tenancy under section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 13(1)(a) (ii) erection of permanent structure without written consent of the Plaintiffs-landlords under section 13(1)(b) and (iii) bonafide requirement. Defendants resisted the suit by filing Written Statement contesting the claims of Plaintiffs-landlords. The Plaint was amended in the year 2004 and Plaintiffs-landlords added the ground of arrears of rent in the plaint. Defendants filed additional written statement contesting the claim of default of payment of rent. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective cases. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence,