A tenant must comply with rent payment obligations and respond to demand notices to avoid eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

2. Revision jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the concurrent findings of the Appellate Court as well as Trial Court decreeing RAE & R Suit No.1193/1911 of 2005 directing ejectment of the revision applicant. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

3. RAE & R Suit No.1193/1911 of 2005 was instituted by the plaintiff seeking ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The suit premises is Shop No.1 situated on the Ground floor, Botawala Chamber, Sir P. M. Road, Mumbai. The suit premises were let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.392/-. It is pleaded that the defendant was in arrears of rent and permitted increases for more than 6 months from the period July 2003 to September 2005 amounting to Rs.10,584/-. That a demand notice dated 30/3/2005 was issued to the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent within 90 days of receipt of letter. That the notice was sent by registered acknowledgment due, which has been received by the defendant as also was posted under certificate of posting. That copy of the notice dated 30/3/2005 was sent for further reference which was received by the defendants. That though notice has been received however defendants have failed and neglected to give any reply nor have paid the arrears of rent as demanded.

4. The defendant contested the suit and the defence in the written statement is that defendant is carrying on the business in the name and style of Shri Rang Maruti and Sons in the suit premises. That one Shrirangrao Nalawade was initially carrying on business of wholesale and retail egg supply and after his death his three sons are carrying on the business in the name and style of “ Shri Rang Maruti & Sons”. It was contended that the defendant is always ready and willing to pay the monthly rent however the landlord has not accepted the arrears of rent and permitted increases. The defendant also denied receipt of letter dated 30/3/2005.

5. The parties went on trial and the plaintiff No.2 who is one of the trustees of the trust landlord examined himself. Along with oral evidence he has also produced documentary evidence in the form of original rent receipt, office copy of the notice dated 30/3/2005, original postal receipt, office copy of the notice dated 17/5/2005 and original postal receipt and acknowledgment card.

6. The Suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant and there was no cross examination. In support of the documentary evidence, additional examination in chief was recorded. The Trial Court by its order dated 10/7/2014 exhibited documents produced by the plaintiff. It appears that subsequently the defendant appeared and PW-1 was cross examined. In the cross examination, the case put by the plaintiff that the demand notice was sent on 30/3/2005 by RPAD as well as certificate of posting was not shaken. It is admitted by PW-1 in cross examination that in respect of notice dated 30/3/2005 sent by RPAD, acknowledgment has not been produced. The suggestion was given to PW-1 that along with letter dated 17/5/2005 xerox copy of letter dated 30/3/2005 was sent.

7. On behalf of defendant Kisan Rao, Shrirangrao stepped into the box and deposed that he had not received the notice dated 30/3/2005 and denied that they are in arrears of rent. He has further deposed that reminder letter dated 17/5/2005 was not received and the signature on the acknowledgment is not signed by the defendant. In the cross examination, DW-1 has admitted that he cannot state the exact month up to which he has paid rent and that he cannot produce rent receipt in respect of the suit premises for the year 2004-2005 as the plaintiffs have not issued the same in spite of collecting rent. He has further admitted that the seal of Rang Maruti & Sons was kept in the cash box. He h