Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Genarosa A. Annes (Since Deceased) through her LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Haji Esmail Haji Essa Supariwala (Since Deceased) through his LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
THE CHALLENGE
1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 30 September 2022 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court by which A1 Appeal No. 335 of 2015 filed by the Applicants has been dismissed. Cross-Objection filed by the Plaintiffs is also dismissed. Small Causes Court's decree dated 14 March 2014 decreeing R.A.E. Suit No. 648/1112 of 2001 has been confirmed. The Small Causes Court, while partly decreeing the suit, has held Plaintiffs to be entitled for decree of eviction of Defendants from the suit premises.
FACTS
2. Plaintiff-Haji Esmail Haji Essa Supariwala, who claims to be the owner and landlord in respect of the building named ‘Supariwala Mansion’ (previously known as Sofia Manzil) situated at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. It appears that Mr. Bahman Jehangir Irani and Mr. Rustom Gustasph Irani were operating Restaurant business in the name of style as 'Cafe Yazdan' in Shop Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the building Sofia Manzil. By Indenture dated 20 June 1952, said Bahman Jahangir
A landlord can seek eviction from a joint tenant for non-payment of rent, provided the demand notice covers the entire tenanted premises.
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.
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 gr....
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
The court affirmed that unauthorized subletting and change of user from residential to commercial were established, with the burden of proof resting on the tenant's family to demonstrate the nature o....
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.
The court upheld the eviction decree based on default in rent and unlawful subletting, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with rent control provisions.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
