Sunday, 10 December 2017

Whether addressee not collecting envelope on intimation amounts refusal to accept notice?

The admitted and proved facts in the petition before me clearly show that within one month, the tenant on March 11, 1975 remitted the entire arrears of Rs. 2,421.14 by a Demand Draft. A look at the envelope shows the necessary postal endorsements that the landlord not having been found at the delivery time. The facts clearly show that the landlord, plaintiff No. 1 has admitted that the envelope bears his correct address. It is common that the postal authorities in the matter of address not being found at delivery time consecutively send intimation and then keep the registered envelope for a period of a week to enable the addressee to collect the envelope personally by attending the post office. The envelope (Exh. 35) in the instant petition bears all the necessary endorsements and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not raised any dispute in regard thereto. In law, failure on the part of the addressee in collecting the envelope on intimation inspite of the fact that the postal authorities retained the envelope for a period of one week, as has been placed on evidence in this matter, cannot but would amount to a refusal on the part of the landlord. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1142 of 1981

Decided On: 01.04.1991

Ramchandra Govind Palekar and Ors.Vs.  Ramesh Nana Jangam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.V. Kamat, J.
Citation: 1992 Bom. C. R. 310.
Print Page

When it is not permissible to take issue of jurisdiction in revision?

Jurisdiction of the court being questioned is a plea being taken in revision for the first time. It does not appear that such objection had been taken while the suit had been defended. No issue on that ground had been framed. Nor does it appear that this contention had ever been urged before the appellate court. It is not a case wherein it can be said that the court which had dealt with the proceedings, had no jurisdiction to try suits pursuant to section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code or for that matter section 5 of the Specific Relief Act.

39. So far as jurisdiction of court is concerned, it appears that the situation is no longer res integra and appears to be amply covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of "Babulal Bhuramal" (supra) relied upon on behalf of the respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2016

Decided On: 23.03.2017

Shila Ramchandra Sachdeva Vs. Vinod Harchamal Santani
Print Page

Whether defect in eviction notice is fatal to suit?

He submits that the gist of the notice is that the tenant had fallen in arrears and that he should make good by paying arrears of rent. He further points out that high court in aforesaid paragraph No. 6 reproduced has clearly considered, if notice seeks amount higher than the admitted rent, it would be open to the tenant to send such amount as according to him is due subject to the liability that if ultimately a larger amount is found to be due, he could not be said to have complied with the requirement of the notice. He therefore, submits that as such, in the ground being taken that the notice is defective or illegal or for that matter fatal there is no water.
In respect of arguments advanced that notice by landlord being defective and illegal with reference to section 10 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, it appears to be a case wherein it cannot be said that the same would be rendered fatal in view of the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of "Fehameeda Begum" (Supra) which points out that the case of "Vinayak Narayan Deshpande" (Supra) being per incuriam, in the face of division bench judgment and the observations of the division bench coupled with the fact that the notice had been for arrears of rent along with compensation for the period which is contended to be in illegal occupation after the demise of original tenant Savitri. Contention now being pressed into service is a newfound objection only in the revision. It is not the case where it can be said that notice per se is either illegal or for that matter not in accordance with law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2016

Decided On: 23.03.2017

Shila Ramchandra Sachdeva Vs. Vinod Harchamal Santani
Print Page

Whether tenant is liable to be evicted if he fails to pay arrears of rent within ninety days from date of filing of suit?

It is further noted that after receipt of suit summons i.e. on 30/9/2007, the defendant has neither paid nor tendered in the Court, the arrears of rent with interest @ 15% p.a. within 90 days, as provided sec. 15 (3) of the Act. She has tendered only the arrears of rent after 143 days after receipt of suit summons. She has not tendered the interest @ 15% p.a. on the arrears of rent. Therefore, she is not entitled to get protection of sec. 15 (2) and (3) of the Act."

37. A further indisputable position has emerged that after institution of the suit for eviction by the plaintiff, the defendant had faltered in complying with mandatory prescription stipulated under section 15 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act making deposit of arrears of rent along with interest within the period of ninety days from the date of service of suit summons and the arrears of rent were deposited with fifty three days delay, without interest @ 15% as required. Judgment in the case of "Vinayak Narayan Deshpande" (Supra) relied upon on behalf of the applicant, in paragraph No. 14 makes reference to that if the tenant chooses not to pay arrears of rent as required under section 15 (3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the landlord cannot be denied a decree for ejectment on the ground of default in making payment of rent, if he proves that the tenant is in arrears of rent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2016

Decided On: 23.03.2017

Shila Ramchandra Sachdeva Vs. Vinod Harchamal Santani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.P. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 396
Print Page