Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J
Gajanan s/o Devidas Wankhare – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Amad – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5552 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri R.G. Kavimandan
For the Respondents: Shri Anand Deshpande, Shri F.T. Mirza
Landlord must provide clear and sufficient pleadings regarding rent arrears and bona fide requirement to succeed in an ejectment suit.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 7 - Ejectment suit - Dismissal of suit on ground of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement - Landlord not proving how rent was increased, tenant's testimony unchallenged, landlord's bona fide requirement questioned - Issue of rent arrears acknowledged. (Paras 2-13)
(B) Ejectment - Misrepresentation of tenancy status and rental amounts - Possession of tenant maintained in light of the tenant's robust defense against increase of rent and lack of evidence from landlord. (Paras 6-13)
Facts of the case:
This petition arises from a landlord's claim against a tenant for non-payment of rent with stated bona fide requirement for construction, where tenant contested the claim citing discrepancies.
Findings of Court:
The court upholds the tenant's defense based on lack of sufficient pleading from the landlord regarding rent increase, which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the suit.
Issues: Core issues include the effectiveness of landlord's notice, the legitimacy of the rent increase claims, and the bona fide requirement justification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that clear pleadings about rent increase are essential, and insufficient evidence failed to satisfy bona fide requirements, justifying the dismissal.
Result: The Rule is made absolute in favor of the petitioner's suit with costs throughout.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. landlord claimed tenant owed rent. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. landlord's evidence insufficient regarding rent increase. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court emphasized clarity in pleadings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court upheld dismissal based on lack of pleadings. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order favoring tenant. (Para 14) |
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
2. This is a landlord’s petition challenging the dismissal of the suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears rent and bona fide requirement. In the plaint, it is stated that the defendant had stopped paying rent more than three years prior to filing the suit. In spite of the demand notice dated 05.10.2000 tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent. The bona fide requirement pleaded is for starting construction of the shopping complex by demolishing the temporary structure, including the premises in possession of the defendant. It is averred that the permission for construction was already granted, and half of the work of the shopping complex was complete.
3. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement. It is stated that initially, rent of the suit premises was ₹35/-. Thereafter, it was increased to ₹100/- and thereafter to ₹200/-. According to the tenant, there was no agreement to pay rent of ₹200/- per month. He denied that there were any arrears of rent. Insofar as the ground of bona fide requirement is concerned, it is pleaded that the plaintiff had constructed a commercial complex and sold premises therein. Therefore, it is clear that the suit premises are not required for the plaintiff's residence.
4. In his examination-in-chief, the defendant specifically stated that the petitioner had let out the shop premises in the area adjoining the suit premises and had also sold the premises. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff made no cross on this point. Initially, the suit was decreed on the grounds of bona fide requirement and rent arrears. The appeal challenging the said decree was allowed to remand the proceeding back to the trial Court to adjudicate the hardship issue. Both the parties led evidence on the point of hardship, and the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 04.05.2009, decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement only. The appeal against the said decree filed by the tenant was allowed dismissing the suit. The cross-objection filed by the landlord was dismissed.
5. The judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
6. The learned Advocate for the landlord submitted that the plaintiff had proved demand notice. Undisputedly, arrears of rent were neither deposited within the period mentioned in the demand notice nor during the pendency of the suit. He invited my attention to Exhibit 10 of the suit, which is a notice demanding the arrears of rent from the defendant. Exhibit 12 is the acknowledgement of receipt of the notice. It was, therefore, necessary for the plaintiff to deposit the amount as per the notice.
He further submitted that the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff had been proved, and therefore the landlord is also entitled to get the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement.
7. Per contra, learned Advocate for the tenant submitted that the plaintiff has not pleaded how the rent was increased. He had not given the details on how initially rent was increased to ₹100/- and thereafter ₹200/- per month. In the absence of such details in the plaint, grave prejudice is caused to the tenant by taking whatever opportunity he had to lead evidence to prove the deposit amount. He invited my attention to the examination-in- chief of the tenant, wherein the tenant has specifically stated that the plaintiff has constructed the shopping complex and let out shop premises in the shopping complex. The landlord also sold shop premises in the said shopping complex. The landlord has not cross-examined the tenant on this point, and th
