Writ Petition No. 1639 of 2014. Case: Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar Vs Surendra Dinanath Sharma. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1639 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.A. Naik, Adv. and For Respondents: R.M. Sharma, Adv. |
| Judges | A. S. Chandurkar, J. |
| Issue | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1); Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 12, 12(3), 15, 15(1), 15(2), 15(3) |
| Judgement Date | February 12, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
-
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
-
This Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) as upheld by the first appellate Court. The premises in question is a ground floor shop that is used for running business by the petitioner. According to the petitioner said premises were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner said amount of rent was being regularly paid till the year 2000 after which the respondent-landlord stopped accepting the same. Subsequently money orders were sent by the petitioner for the months of March, April and May 2000. On 29.04.2008 notice came to be issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. The arrears were demanded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. In response to said notice the petitioner issued a reply on 02.06.2008 stating that agreed rent of Rs. 500/- per month and that he was ready to pay the same. It was further stated that the claim for period prior to three years was barred by limitation. A cheque for amount of Rs. 18,000/- dated 09.07.2008 was remitted by the petitioner which was accepted by the landlord. This amount of Rs. 18000/- was towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for preceding three years.
-
As according to respondent the petitioner was in arrears of rent and as the respondent required the premises for his bonafide occupation, Civil Suit No. 250 of 2008 came to be filed on 08.08.2008. It was the specific case of the landlord that rent payable was Rs. 5000/- per month and the amount remitted by the tenant did not cover the entire arrears. The tenant filed his written statement setting up a plea that agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month and having paid sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards arrears for preceding three years, the tenant was not in default. The claim as regards bonafide need was also denied.
-
In the trial, the tenant in his cross examination admitted the rent to be Rs. 5000/- per month. Hence, on 19.04.2010 the landlord filed an application under provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). As per said application it was prayed that the tenant be directed to deposit arrears for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008 and also for the subsequent period at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. Said application was opposed by the tenant. By order dated 18.08.2010 the trial Court allowed the application and directed the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from 01.05.2008. The amounts already paid were permitted to be adjusted.
-
The tenant being aggrieved by said order challenged the same by filing Misc. Civil Appeal. However, by order dated 10.01.2011 said appeal came to be dismissed. This Court in Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2011 did not interfere with the said order but extended the time to deposit the amount of arrears. In terms of said order the tenant deposited the sums as directed.
-
In support of the claim for eviction the landlord examined himself and his son while the tenant examined himself and another witness in support of his defence. The trial Court thereafter by its judgment dated 20.03.2012 decreed the suit holding that the tenant was in arrears of rent. It held that rent payable was Rs. 5000/- per month and by not paying the entire arrears he was liable to be evicted on said count. Eviction was also ordered on the ground of...
To continue reading
Request your trial