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.

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 defaulter in payment of monthly rent and was very irregular in paying the same. Plaintiff served Advocate notice dated 21 January 2009 communicating the default committed by the Defendant in payment of rent. Another notice dated 14 July 2012 was served on the Defendant calling him upon to regularize the payment of monthly rent.

3. In the above background, Plaintiff instituted RAE Suit No.438 of 2017 in the Court of Small Causes at Bandra, Mumbai, for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as Defendant's acts of breach of terms of tenancy. Defendant appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contesting the right of the Plaintiff. It was contended that Plaintiff merely signed the tenancy agreement as constituted attorney of the owner Ms. Taradevi Ganesh Saxena, who passed way leaving behind 10 legal heirs. That therefore Plaintiff was one of the landlords and owners of the property and not the sole owner. Additionally, Defendant also contended that Shri Swetamber Murti Pujak Tapogachh Jain Sangh has purchased 37.5% share in the building from the heirs of deceased Ms. Taradevi Ganesh Saxena. That said Sangh had not consented for filing of the suit. Defendant also denied that he was irregular in payment of rent. He further contended that originally, the monthly rent of the suit premises was only Rs.810/-, which was increased by the Plaintiff from time to time and he is started demanding Rs. 3,000/- towards the rent.

4. Based on pleadings, Small Causes Court framed issues. Rival parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, Small Causes Court proceeded to decree the suit by judgment and order dated 20 April 2023 holding that the Defendant was not ready or willing to pay monthly rent and was irregular in paying the same since October 2008. The Small Causes Court further held that Defendant had committed breach of terms of agreement of tenancy. The Small Causes Court rejected the contentions of the Defendant that Plaintiff is not co-owner of the suit premises or that he did not have locus to file the suit. Trial Court accordingly directed Defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

5. Defendant filed Appeal No.19 of 2023 before Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court challenging the eviction decree dated 20 April 2023. The Appellate Court has however dismissed the Appeal filed by the Applicant/Defendant by its judgment and decree dated 2 November 2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

6. Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant would submit that the Trial and the Appellate Courts have grossly erred in entertaining the