SANDEEP V. MARNE
Dilip Jasaramji Mali – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Ganesh Saxena – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1. Applicant has filed this Revision Application challenging the judgment and decree dated 2 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 19 of 2023 filed by him and confirming the eviction decree dated 20 April 2023 passed by the Small Causes Court in RAE Suit No.438 of 2017. The Small Causes Court, while decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff, has directed the Revision Applicant/Defendant to vacate the suit premises by handing over its possession to the Respondent/Plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff claims to be one of the landlords and owner of the property known as 'Flat No.2B, Saxena House' situated at Road No. 2, 13, Jai Prakash Nagar, Goregaon (East), Mumbai–400063. Revision Applicant / Defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of Flat No. 2-B admeasuring 500 sq. ft. carpet area in the building ‘Saxena House’ on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- vide Rent Agreement dated 15 December 2005 executed between Ms. Taradevi Ganesh Saxena (through her constituted attorney being Mr. Ramesh Ganesh Saxena) and the Defendant- tenant. Plaintiff claims that Defendant was a defau
Babulal Fakirchand Agrawal vs. Suresh Kedarnath Malpani and others
Chandiram Dariyanumal Ahuja vs. Akola Zilla Shram Wahtuk Sahakari Sanstha, Akola
A landlord must issue a valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before initiating eviction proceedings; failure to do so renders the suit invalid.
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.
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.
The court upheld the eviction decree based on default in rent and unlawful subletting, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent control provisions.
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
Timely application and deposit of rent, even if slightly delayed due to holidays, fulfill statutory requirements preventing eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Eviction under rent control law is warranted where the tenant defaults on rent for over six months, negating hardship claims absent a bona-fide requirement.
Increase in rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not automatic but requires a formal demand by the landlord; failure to do so prior to suit renders the claim unmaintainable.
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.
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.