The court upheld the eviction decree based on default in rent and unlawful subletting, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent control provisions.

JUDGMENT :

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

1) Applicants have preferred this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree dated 24 February 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal No.4/2014 and confirming the eviction decree dated 24 January 2014 passed by the Small Causes Court in RA.E. Suit No.29/66 of 2006.

2) Facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that Plaintiff is the owner of property together with structure admeasuring 15 ft x 15 ft and open space admeasuring 20 ft x 10 ft in front of the structure (collectively admeasuring 40 ft x 19 ft) situated at Plot No.23, Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (suit premises). Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were inducted as monthly tenants in respect of the suit premises on rent of Rs.250/- exclusive of all taxes. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 were in arrears of rent from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 amounting to Rs.3,000/-. It was further alleged that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 covered the open space by constructing unauthorised structure with brick walls, iron beams and roof and thereafter effected permanent additions and alterations without the consent of the landlord. That the suit premises were let out for residential purposes, which were converted by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 for commercial use without Plaintiffs’ consent. That Defendant Nos.1 to 3 had left the suit premises and had shifted to alternate accommodation. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No.4 was inducted as an unauthorised occupant by the tenant and thereby the premises were unlawfully sublet. On these broad grounds, Plaintiff sought eviction of the Defendants by filing R.A.E. Suit No.29/66 of 2006. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement contesting Plaintiff ’s claim. The suit was amended by Plaintiff by inserting para-15A and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed amended written statement. Based on pleadings filed by the parties, the Small Causes Court framed issues. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit by its judgment and order dated 24 January 2014. The Small Causes Court accepted the grounds of unlawful subletting, default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff. However, the grounds of erecting permanent structure, commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act and change of user were rejected by the Small Causes Court. The Small Causes Court also rejected the objection raised by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 about maintainability of the suit on the grounds that the suit premises were constructed on government land. Though the Small Causes Court accepted the ground of unlawful subletting, it held that the premises were sublet to Chandrakala Venkatramaiah Golapalli.

3) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed (A-1) Appeal No.4/2014 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decree dated 24 January 2014. The Appellate Court has confirmed the findings of the Small Causes Court on the issues of default in payment of rent, unlawful subletting and bonafide requirement. Accordingly, the Appeal preferred by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 has been dismissed by the Appellate Court by decree dated 24 February 2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application.

4) I have heard Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in entertaining the suit filed by the Plaintiff without appreciating the fact that the suit premises are situated on government land and accordingly provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) do not apply to the suit premises by virtue of provisions of Section 3(1)(a) thereof. He would submit that to qualify for protection of tenancy under the M.R.C