The court affirmed that a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises and a tenant's failure to pay rent are valid grounds for eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner-Defendant has filed this petition challenging the Decree dated 14 March 2022 passed by the District Judge, Pune dismissing Civil Revision Application No. 17/2014 and confirming the Decree dated 30 October 2013 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No. 276 of 2011. The Small Causes Court, while decreeing the suit filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, has directed Petitioner-Defendant to vacate the suit premises and to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 3,600/- to Plaintiffs. Separate enquiry is directed to be conducted in mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till recovery of possession under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code).

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that two residential blocks situated on north-east corner on the ground floor of the House Property No. 1992, Convent Street, Pune are the ‘suit premises’. House property No. 1992 was originally owned by Ms. Perin Behram Gastava. The erstwhile landlord, Ms. Perin Gastava had inducted Defendant’s father late Joginder Singh Sethi as tenant in respect of the suit premises. After death of late Joginder Singh Sethi, tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises are claimed by the Defendant, who has been residing in the suit property. By Agreement for Sale dated 18 December 2007, Plaintiff agreed to purchase house bearing No. 1992. Thereafter, registered Sale Deed dated 31 January 2008 was executed and this is how Plaintiffs became owner of property bearing House No. 1992 and also became landlord in respect of the suit premises. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant stopped paying rent in respect of the suit premises to the erstwhile landlady, Smt. Perin Gastava from the year 1995. After purchase of the suit property, Plaintiff served notice dated 14 March 2008 on the Defendants demanding rent from January 1995. Defendant gave reply dated 4 June 2008 denying liability to pay rent. It appears that money order was sent by Defendant to Plaintiffs in respect of the rent for the period from 1 February 2008 to 31 March 2009 and according to the Plaintiffs the rent prior to 1 February 2008 as well as rent after 31 March 2009 was not paid by the Defendant. This is how Defendant was in arrears of rent of Rs.2,400/- from 1 April 2009 till the date of filing of the suit besides the liability to pay permitted increases etc. Plaintiffs accordingly instituted Civil Suit No. 276 of 2011 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant on the grounds of default, bonafide requirement. Recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.20,400/- from January 1995 to 31 January 2008 and from 1 April 2009 till filing of the suit was also sought.

3. Defendant appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement claiming that he was a tenant in respect of the entire ground floor consisting of four rooms or four blocks in House No. 1992. It was contended that initially two adjoining blocks were let out to Mr. Pushpa H. Merwani and Mr. J.N. Parek, who surrendered their tenancies in favour of the original owner, Ms.Perin Gastava, who let out the said two blocks to Defendant’s father and this is how Defendant’s father started paying rent to Ms. Perin Gastava in respect of the four blocks. Reliance was placed on rent receipt dated 11 June 1992. Defendant denied the allegation of non-payment of rent since 1995, as well any bonafide need on the part of the Plaintiffs.

4. The Plaint was amended and additional details about Plaintiffs’ family members were added by way of para-8A to further buttress the ground of bonafide need. It was also pleaded in the amended para that Defendant had spacious residential flat at Wanowrie, Pune. Plaintiffs also added paras-5(a) and 5(b) in the plaint about obstruction caused by Defendant on 11 July 2011 from visiting the house property owned by them. The ground of making permanent alterations in the suit premises was also added stating that as per the sanctioned plan,