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 grounds for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

A. THE CHALLENGE

1. These are cross proceedings filed by rival parties challenging the judgment and decree dated 30 November 2023 passed by the District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No. 560/2014. The tenant is aggrieved by dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 560/2014 and confirmation of the eviction decree dated 9 September 2014 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 195/2010 by which the Defendant is directed to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs-landlords, on the contrary, are aggrieved by rejection of cross-objections by the Appellate Court holding that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are tenants of Plaintiffs and rejecting the ground of unlawful subletting. Plaintiffs desire that their case of Defendant No. 1 is the tenant, who unlawfully sublet the premises in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, be accepted in addition to the ground of default in payment of rent. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have however held Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (Revision Applicants) to be the direct tenants of Plaintiffs and have decreed the suit on the sole ground of default in payment of rent by them. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have accordingly filed Civil Revision Application No. 71/2024 challenging the eviction decree whereas the Plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 8788/2023 challenging rejection of their cross-objections by the Appellate Court. Rule in Writ Petition No. 8788/2024. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, Civil Revision Application and Writ Petition No. 8788/2024 are taken up for final disposal.

B. FACTS

2. A Plot of land admeasuring 125 ft x 50 ft together with shed constructed thereon admeasuring 20 ft x 30 ft situated at Survey No. 101 final Plot No. 780, Town Planning Scheme No. 76, Bhamburda Shivajinagar, Pune are the suit premises. Though original plot of land admeasuring 85 Khans was sought to be included in the description of the suit property, the plaint was apparently amended by incorporation the correct measurement of plot admeasuring 125 ft x 50 ft and shed constructed therein admeasuring 25 ft x 30 ft. It appears that the suit premises were owned by Late Rashid Khodaram Irani, who passed away on 7 November 1970. Plaintiff No. 2, Jehangir Dinshaw Kaikhashroo Moriabadi/Irani claims to be the grandson of real brother of Rashid Khodaram Irani. Plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of Plaintiff No. 2. It is claimed that the father of Plaintiff No. 2 and husband of Plaintiff No. 1 Dinshaw Irani used to collect rent in respect of the suit premises and after his death on 5 July 1992, Plaintiffs have become owners and landlords in respect of the suit premises. It is claimed that late Gulam Husain was inducted as tenant in the suit premises, who was conducting the business of raddi (scrap) depot. Defendant No. 1 is the son of late Gulam Husain. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No. 1 illegally inducted Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit premises as sub-tenant without the consent of landlords and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were using and possessing the suit premises in the capacity as illegal sub-tenants. That Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 started the business of Toddy in the suit premises, without the consent of the landlords and against the provisions of law and thereby changed the use of the suit premises. It is also claimed that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 encroached upon other portions of plots belonging to the Plaintiff apart from the suit premises, exceeding 85 Khans which was originally let out to Ghulam Husain. That Defendant No. 1 had carried out illegal construction at the suit premises without the consent of the landlords. Plaintiffs also claimed that Defendant No. 1 was in arrears of rent, permitted increases and taxes since 1 February 1993. Plaintiffs accordingly issued notice dated 19 January 2010 on all the three Defendants and demanded rent from Defendant No. 1 and terminated his tenancy.

3. In the above factual background, Pl