A valid notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is a prerequisite for eviction suits based on arrears of rent.

JUDGMENT

1) The Revision Applicant has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 2 May 2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 5/2021, by which the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal by setting aside the decree dated 14 February 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 743/1278 of _________________________________________________________________________

2008. The Appellate Bench has decreed the suit directing the Revision Applicants/Defendants to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs.

2) Plaintiffs/Respondents are owners in respect of the building named ‘Bharthania Building’ situated at 3, Rutherfield Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. Tenancy Agreement/Articles of Agreement was executed between the Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-title and Defendant-Ms. Gloria Louis Crasto and her mother-Anna Magdaline Crasto on 18 June 1990 by which monthly tenancy was created in favour of Defendant and her mother in respect of the room premises bearing Room No.1 admeasuring 125 sq.ft of first floor of Barthania Building. Plaintiffs served Notice dated 26 August 2006 to Defendant claiming that she was in arrears of rent of Rs. 43,671/- comprising of taxes due from April 1971, property tax due from April 2001, repairs due from April 2001 and rent due from April 2004. The Notice dated 26 August 2006 was received by the Defendant. It is Plaintiff’s case that on 12 December 2006, a reminder was sent for not depositing the arrears of rent as per the notice dated 26 August 2006. Defendant denies having received the said letter dated 12 December 2006. Plaintiffs served advocate’s notice dated 1 April 2007 stating that the Defendant was in arrears of rent till March 2007 of Rs. 57,696/- and calling upon the Defendant to vacate the possession of the suit premises. Defendant denies that the advocate’s notice dated 1 April 2007 was received by her. Plaintiff thereafter instituted R.A.E. Suit No. 743/1278/2008 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai seeking Defendant’s eviction of on the grounds of default of payment of rent and non-user of preemies continuously for a long time. Defendant resisted the _________________________________________________________________________

suit by filing Written Statement by raising various defences including the defence of non-service of valid notice before filing of suit for arrears of rent. Defendant also denied the allegation of non-use of the premises. Plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No.4-Mrs. Kermeen Bose (P.W.1), Mr. Praful Kharas (P.W.2), and Mr. Amardeep Patil (P.W.3). Defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Rodney D’mello (D.W.2).

3) After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 14 February 2020 by rejecting both the grounds of arrears of rent and non- user. Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decree dated 14 February 2020, Plaintiffs filed Appeal No.5/2021 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appeal is allowed by the Appellate Bench by accepting both the grounds of default in payment of rent, as well as non-user of the premises. The decree of the Trial Court is set aside and the suit has been decreed directing the Defendant to vacate the possession of the suit premises. The Revision Applicant has filed the present Revision Application challenging the decree passed by the Appellate Bench on 2 May 2024.

4) Ms. Gloria Castro, the Revision Applicant in person submits that the suit filed on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was defective on account of non-service of notice on the Defendant-tenant. Inviting my attention to the notice dated 1 April 2007, she would submit that the same was dispatched at wrong address mentioning ‘C-Block’ when infact the suit premises are located in ‘D-Block’. Even