Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Mathuresh Infrapro Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chudiwala Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)
1) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for setting up a challenge to the judgment and order dated 19 April 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by which R. Appeal No. 316/2017 filed by the original Plaintiffs-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been allowed and order dated 22 October 2016 passed by the Small Causes Court has been set aside. By allowing the Appeal, the Appellate Bench has rejected application at Exhibit-38 filed by Revision Applicant-Defendant No.6 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). The Small Causes Court had allowed the application at Exhibit-38 filed by the Revision Applicant-Defendant No.6 and had rejected the Plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code by order dated 22 October 2016. The Appellate Bench has reversed the decision of the Small Causes Court and has restored R.A.D. Suit No.227/2012. The Revision Applicant-Defendant No.6 is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and has accordingly filed the present Revision Application.
2) The case involves chequered history. By registered Indentu
A suit seeking declaration of tenancy rights without a claim for possession is barred under Section 144(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it indirectly seeks restitution already denied.
The exclusion of time under S.14 of the Limitation Act applies when the court's endorsement process causes delays.
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
A plaint must be read meaningfully to determine if it discloses a cause of action; issues of jurisdiction and limitation are to be resolved at trial.
Unauthorized subletting by a tenant constitutes a continuing breach, allowing landlords to seek eviction within the limitation period as long as the breach continues.
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 held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
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 denying rent is not required to deposit until the court adjudicates the issue of tenancy, as per Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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
