It was held by
the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1983
Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath
Bangh) that a notice seeking arrears of rent should not be construed
strictly and if the notice seeks an 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 requirements
of the notice. A similar view was expressed in the judgment reported in
1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhandas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) wherein this Court has held that the notice of demand by a
landlord seeking arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13.56 per month as
against the standard rent at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month was not
badinlaw and the tenant had an option to pay the undisputed amount
at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month and raise a dispute as regards the
claim made by the landlord. Admittedly, in the instant case the
respondenttenant had not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees
two hundred per month within a period of ninety days from the receipt
of the notice. So also, the tenant had admittedly not deposited the
arrears of rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per month within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons in the trial Court. The
trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the landlady was entitled to
possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The first appellate Court, however, relied on the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice was badinlaw and the
suit was not maintainable. It is clear from the various decisions of this
Court that the notice was not badinlaw and it was open for the
respondenttenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The tenant,
having failed to deposit the admitted rent, was liable to hand over the
possession of the property to the landlady under Section 15 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4253/2012
Smt.Fehameeda V Shri Abdul Hafiz
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATED : 11.02.2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is
whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between
the landlord and the tenant is badinlaw or whether the notice would
be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of
admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the
notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit
summons.
The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice
under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the
respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002
till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month.
In spite of the service of the notice, the respondenttenant did not pay
the rent. A suit was, therefore, instituted by the landlady against the
tenant seeking recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g)
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial Court decreed the
suit of the landlady and directed the respondent to hand over the
possession under the provisions of Section 15 thereof. The trial Court
rejected the claim of the landlady for possession of the property under
Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The
respondenttenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. A cross appeal was filed by the landlady
seeking possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appeal filed by the
respondenttenant was allowed by the first appellate Court. It was held
by the first appellate Court that the notice issued by the landlady under
Section 15 of the Act of 1999 was badinlaw inasmuch as the landlady
had sought the rent at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per
month when the admitted rent between the parties was rupees two
hundred per month only. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment dated 22/03/2012 in the instant petition.
Shri Dhoble, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the first appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree
passed by the trial Court and holding that the notice under Section 15
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was badinlaw. The learned
counsel relied on the judgments reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254
(Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh), 1998 (3)
Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) and 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 156 (Shriniwas Babulal v. Ramakant
s/o Shivnarayan Jaiswal) to substantiate his submission that the notice
would not be badinlaw and the respondenttenant had an option to
pay the arrears of admitted rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per
month within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit
summons. According to the learned counsel, even the admitted rent
was not paid by the tenant within a period of ninety days from the
receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 or within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. It is submitted that
the first appellate Court erroneously relied on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807
(Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode)
to answer the issue in regard to the validity of notice in favour of the
tenant, without considering the other decisions which were holding the
field.
Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported
the judgment passed by the first appellate Court and submitted that
the first appellate Court rightly considered the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice of demand was not
issued in accordance with law and the suit seeking a decree of
recovery of possession on the ground of non payment of rent was
not maintainable on the basis of such a notice. It is submitted that
in any case the tenant has deposited a sum of rupees twenty
three thousand nine hundred and thirty five in the trial Court even
though the tenant is liable to pay only a sum of rupees twenty three
thousand till this date. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of
the writ petition.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the judgments referred herein above, it appears that the first
appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree passed by the
trial Court in favour of the landlady. The first appellate Court was not
justified in holding that the notice issued by the landlady under Section
15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was bad in law as the
landlady claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees four hundred
and fifty per month instead of seeking the rent at the rate of rupees two
hundred per month, which was admitted. The first appellate Court
while relying on the judgment reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807
(Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode),
failed to consider the subsequent judgment of this Court reported in
2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 156 (Sriniwas Babulal v. Ramakant s/o
Shivnarayan Jaiswal) which in turn had referred to the judgments
reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v.
Narayan Jagannath Bangh) and 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji
Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and another). It appears that
when the learned Single Judge was considering the question of validity
of the notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 in the judgment reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak
Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode), the
judgment of the Division Bench reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254
(Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh) and the
judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in 1998 (3) Mh.L.J.
237 (Lalji Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and another) were
not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It was held by
the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1983
Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath
Bangh) that a notice seeking arrears of rent should not be construed
strictly and if the notice seeks an 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 requirements
of the notice. A similar view was expressed in the judgment reported in
1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhandas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) wherein this Court has held that the notice of demand by a
landlord seeking arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13.56 per month as
against the standard rent at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month was not
badinlaw and the tenant had an option to pay the undisputed amount
at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month and raise a dispute as regards the
claim made by the landlord. Admittedly, in the instant case the
respondenttenant had not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees
two hundred per month within a period of ninety days from the receipt
of the notice. So also, the tenant had admittedly not deposited the
arrears of rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per month within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons in the trial Court. The
trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the landlady was entitled to
possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The first appellate Court, however, relied on the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice was badinlaw and the
suit was not maintainable. It is clear from the various decisions of this
Court that the notice was not badinlaw and it was open for the
respondenttenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The tenant,
having failed to deposit the admitted rent, was liable to hand over the
possession of the property to the landlady under Section 15 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The judgment passed
by the trial court on 18/08/2010 stands confirmed.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
An oral request made by the learned counsel for the respondent
for staying the judgment for a period of six weeks, though opposed by
the counsel for the petitioner, is granted. The stay would automatically
stand vacated after the expiry of the period of six weeks.
the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1983
Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath
Bangh) that a notice seeking arrears of rent should not be construed
strictly and if the notice seeks an 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 requirements
of the notice. A similar view was expressed in the judgment reported in
1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhandas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) wherein this Court has held that the notice of demand by a
landlord seeking arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13.56 per month as
against the standard rent at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month was not
badinlaw and the tenant had an option to pay the undisputed amount
at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month and raise a dispute as regards the
claim made by the landlord. Admittedly, in the instant case the
respondenttenant had not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees
two hundred per month within a period of ninety days from the receipt
of the notice. So also, the tenant had admittedly not deposited the
arrears of rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per month within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons in the trial Court. The
trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the landlady was entitled to
possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The first appellate Court, however, relied on the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice was badinlaw and the
suit was not maintainable. It is clear from the various decisions of this
Court that the notice was not badinlaw and it was open for the
respondenttenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The tenant,
having failed to deposit the admitted rent, was liable to hand over the
possession of the property to the landlady under Section 15 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4253/2012
Smt.Fehameeda V Shri Abdul Hafiz
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATED : 11.02.2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is
whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between
the landlord and the tenant is badinlaw or whether the notice would
be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of
admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the
notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit
summons.
The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice
under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the
respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002
till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month.
In spite of the service of the notice, the respondenttenant did not pay
the rent. A suit was, therefore, instituted by the landlady against the
tenant seeking recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g)
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial Court decreed the
suit of the landlady and directed the respondent to hand over the
possession under the provisions of Section 15 thereof. The trial Court
rejected the claim of the landlady for possession of the property under
Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The
respondenttenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. A cross appeal was filed by the landlady
seeking possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appeal filed by the
respondenttenant was allowed by the first appellate Court. It was held
by the first appellate Court that the notice issued by the landlady under
Section 15 of the Act of 1999 was badinlaw inasmuch as the landlady
had sought the rent at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per
month when the admitted rent between the parties was rupees two
hundred per month only. The petitioner has challenged the impugned
judgment dated 22/03/2012 in the instant petition.
Shri Dhoble, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the first appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree
passed by the trial Court and holding that the notice under Section 15
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was badinlaw. The learned
counsel relied on the judgments reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254
(Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh), 1998 (3)
Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) and 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 156 (Shriniwas Babulal v. Ramakant
s/o Shivnarayan Jaiswal) to substantiate his submission that the notice
would not be badinlaw and the respondenttenant had an option to
pay the arrears of admitted rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per
month within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit
summons. According to the learned counsel, even the admitted rent
was not paid by the tenant within a period of ninety days from the
receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 or within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. It is submitted that
the first appellate Court erroneously relied on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807
(Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode)
to answer the issue in regard to the validity of notice in favour of the
tenant, without considering the other decisions which were holding the
field.
Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported
the judgment passed by the first appellate Court and submitted that
the first appellate Court rightly considered the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice of demand was not
issued in accordance with law and the suit seeking a decree of
recovery of possession on the ground of non payment of rent was
not maintainable on the basis of such a notice. It is submitted that
in any case the tenant has deposited a sum of rupees twenty
three thousand nine hundred and thirty five in the trial Court even
though the tenant is liable to pay only a sum of rupees twenty three
thousand till this date. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of
the writ petition.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the judgments referred herein above, it appears that the first
appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree passed by the
trial Court in favour of the landlady. The first appellate Court was not
justified in holding that the notice issued by the landlady under Section
15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was bad in law as the
landlady claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees four hundred
and fifty per month instead of seeking the rent at the rate of rupees two
hundred per month, which was admitted. The first appellate Court
while relying on the judgment reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807
(Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode),
failed to consider the subsequent judgment of this Court reported in
2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 156 (Sriniwas Babulal v. Ramakant s/o
Shivnarayan Jaiswal) which in turn had referred to the judgments
reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v.
Narayan Jagannath Bangh) and 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji
Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and another). It appears that
when the learned Single Judge was considering the question of validity
of the notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 in the judgment reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak
Narayan Deshpande and others. v. Deelip Pralhad Sisode), the
judgment of the Division Bench reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 254
(Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath Bangh) and the
judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in 1998 (3) Mh.L.J.
237 (Lalji Lachhamdas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and another) were
not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It was held by
the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1983
Mh.L.J. 254 (Chhaganlal Mulchand Jain v. Narayan Jagannath
Bangh) that a notice seeking arrears of rent should not be construed
strictly and if the notice seeks an 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 requirements
of the notice. A similar view was expressed in the judgment reported in
1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 237 (Lalji Lachhandas v. Amiruddin Amanulla and
another) wherein this Court has held that the notice of demand by a
landlord seeking arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13.56 per month as
against the standard rent at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month was not
badinlaw and the tenant had an option to pay the undisputed amount
at the rate of Rs.12.00 per month and raise a dispute as regards the
claim made by the landlord. Admittedly, in the instant case the
respondenttenant had not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of rupees
two hundred per month within a period of ninety days from the receipt
of the notice. So also, the tenant had admittedly not deposited the
arrears of rent at the rate of rupees two hundred per month within
ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons in the trial Court. The
trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the landlady was entitled to
possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The first appellate Court, however, relied on the judgment reported in
2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 807 (Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and others. v.
Deelip Pralhad Sisode) to hold that the notice was badinlaw and the
suit was not maintainable. It is clear from the various decisions of this
Court that the notice was not badinlaw and it was open for the
respondenttenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The tenant,
having failed to deposit the admitted rent, was liable to hand over the
possession of the property to the landlady under Section 15 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The judgment passed
by the trial court on 18/08/2010 stands confirmed.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
An oral request made by the learned counsel for the respondent
for staying the judgment for a period of six weeks, though opposed by
the counsel for the petitioner, is granted. The stay would automatically
stand vacated after the expiry of the period of six weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment