Whether court can dismiss eviction suit on ground that rent deed was not registered?

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sec. 15 - Arrears of rent - Suit for eviction Decree - High Court setting aside decree - Validity - No dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between parties - Admission of part of tenant about amount of rent payable by him - Admission of tenant about not paying rent right from day one when tenancy commenced - High Court setting aside decree on ground that rent deed was not registered document and as such not admissible in evidence - Not proper - Admission of party in proceedings either in pleading or oral is best evidence and same does not need any further corroboration - Held, Dismissal of suit simply on ground that rent deed was not registered cannot be accepted and liable to be set aside             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Bombay High Court]
(Before T S Thakur ; F M Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5316-5318 OF 2012 

Ahmedsaheb
Vs
Sayed Ismail

Citations: 2012(8)SCC516; 2012(6)JT581; 2012(6)SCALE505; 2012(6)SCR984;

Print Page

Whether is it necessary for the landlord to issue a fresh notice to legal heirs after the death of the original tenant?

So, I am afraid the applicants' contention that they should have been notified under Section 15 of the MRC Act afresh does not pass the judicial muster. There is no privity of contract between the landlords and the applicants 1 and 2. They only trace their right through their deceased ancestor, the original tenant. Then they take those rights with all the liabilities or burdens as well. As the legal heirs, they could press forward only the plea available to the deceased original tenant. In other words, they have simply stepped into the original tenant's shoes. Nothing more.

17. In that context, I reckon the notice issued to the original tenant binds his legal representatives. So long as they have no independent claim of tenancy viz-a-viz the landlords, their insistence on having a fresh notice to quit does not arise. I, therefore, hold that the law does not mandate that the legal representatives of the deceased tenant should be put to a fresh notice on the original tenant's death. To that extent, the concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered with.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 867 of 2012

Decided On: 27.08.2019

 Sunanda Ramkrishna Ayare  Vs.  Harishchandra Gopal Parab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Citation: 2012(2) MHLJ 251

Print Page

Important provisions of Maharashtra Rent control Act (Part 1)

S.2 Application:

This Act shall apply to premises let for the purposes of residence, education, business, trade or storage.

S 3 Exemption:

1) This Act shall not apply:

a) to any premises belonging to government or local authority.

b) to any premises let out to banks, any public sector undertakings or any corporation, foreign missions, international agencies, multi-national companies and private limited companies and public limited companies having paid up capital of Rupees one crore or more.

S 7,(9) Definition of premises-Open space is excluded from maharashtra rent control Act.

S 7(15) Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary for tenant to prove that he is ready and willing to pay rent to avoid eviction decree?

"Tenant pays"- the material words in Section 15(1) are preceded by words "so long as" and independently or even without their support, convey a conclusion to be drawn from the conduct of tenant or a state of affairs spread over a reasonably long time. Payment of rent of one or two months or on few occasions by a tenant will not be sufficient to deduce that this tenant "pays" the rent. Similarly, its non-payment for such short duration or once or twice may not imply that he does not pay. Burden obviously will be on the landlord initially to demonstrate that his tenant "does not pay". Legal notice or threat of eviction coercing that tenant to pay and consequential payment will not show that "tenant pays". If the tenant wants to enjoy protection under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, he will have to prove that he pays and had been paying rent voluntarily and not only when coerced. In a given contingency, he may prove his readiness and willingness to pay. Thus, ingredients of Section 15(2) and (3) are not germane when landlord's grievance is that his tenant does not pay or is not ready and willing to pay. Conversely the tenant will be required to prove that he was/is ready and willing to pay rent i.e. that quantum of rent which formed subject matter of landlord's grievance. Thus, characteristics or factors which are relevant for finding out whether "the tenant pays," equally apply to concept implicit in "is ready and willing to pay." Thus, factors relevant for deciding the mental habit of tenant to commit defaults are determinative under said subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Letters Patent Appeal No. 307 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 1101 of 2007 (D)

Decided On: 23.10.2012

Chandiram Dariyanumal Ahuja Vs. Akola Zilla Shram Wahtuk Sahakari Sanstha

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.P. Bhangale, JJ.

Citation: 2013(1) MHLJ28

Print Page

When it is permissible for landlord to file suit for eviction on ground of arrears of rent?

The   view   expressed   by   Division   Bench   in   the   matter   
Chandiram Ahuja (supra) lays down correct preposition and we are
in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in
aforesaid matter.   The view expressed by Division Bench in the
matter of Narhar Wani (supra) does not lay down correct law and
we disagree with the view expressed therein.  

To infer that once the tenant pays the amount recorded in
the   notice   or   tenders   the   same,   the   landlord   has   no   right   to
institute a suit for recovery of possession for non­payment of those
arrears   or   continue   with   such   proceeding   for   eviction   and   no
decree for possession can be asked for, is not within contemplation
of provisions of section 15 of the Act.   The provision does not
interfere with the right of the landlord to initiate proceeding for
eviction,   however,   sub­section   (2)   of   section   15   prescribes
precondition for presentation of suit, that is to say that no suit can
be initiated without issuing a notice within contemplation of said
sub­section (2) of section 15 and tenant's entitlement to claim relief
against   forfeiture   shall   be   subject   to   fulfilment   of   conditions
stipulated under sub­section (1) and (3) of section 15 of the Rent

Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2010
  
Babulal s/o Fakirchand Agrawal Vs  Suresh s/o Kedarnath Malpani


CORAM : R.M. BORDE, 
      RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
      SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJJ
     
 PRONOUNCED ON : 12th June, 2017.
Citation: 2017(4) MHLJ 406 (FB),2017(4) ALLMR 356(FB)

Print Page

Whether tenant can stop depositing rent during pendency of appeal?

 Therefore, a tenant who does not avail of benefit under Section 12(3) cannot get its benefit at the appellate stage by contending that appeal is continuation of a suit. But on that basis a tenant who contends that he has deposited arrears in the trial Court as per Section 12(3) cannot stop depositing arrears in the Appellate Court by contending that he was obliged to pay arrears only in the trial Court and appeal is not extension of the suit and, therefore, he need not pay rent in the Appellate Court at all and if he does not deposit, the landlord has to file a fresh suit. The tenant would in effect be contending that the Appellate Court is powerless to deal with such a tenant. Such can never be the intention of the legislature.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 9011 of 2004

Decided On: 06.05.2005

 Bhaskar Bhagwant Shinde Vs. Sou. Vasudha Madhukar Kadam and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

 Citation : 2005 (3)MhLj 428,2005 (3) ALLMR 77,

Print Page

Whether tenant is liable to be evicted from tenanted premises if he fails to pay rent regularly?

The facts unfolded in this case may now be examined in the light of the foregoing discussion. The rent, which the tenant was paying till 1996, was Rs. 3,555/per annum and not Rs. 1,320/per annum, as is claimed by the tenant. He had tendered the arrears of rent along with the reply to the notice of demand at the rate of Rs. 1,320/per annum only. The municipal taxes were being recovered at the rate of Rs. 580/per annum against Rs. 481/per annum, which was the amount which could have been claimed. Against municipal taxes, the tenant had tendered a sum of Rs. 1,740/, which was slightly in excess. After the suit was filed, the tenant made an application for fixation of standard rent, which was rejected and no challenge has been raised to such rejection separately. The tenant had not deposited the amount in arrears within 90 days of receipt of suit summons. He did not deposit the rent due during the pendency of the lis from time to time regularly as per the chart made available by the petitioner. Initially, the deposits were delayed by a month or two, but thereafter the deposits were not regular. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the rent was payable by the year, these deviations by a month or two do not matter. Yet the fact remains that the tenant had neglected and failed to pay the amount of rent as on 1101987 within 90 days of notice of demand and even within 90 days of service of suit summons. He has also not been regular in depositing the rent and taxes during the pendency of the lis. The contention of the tenant that since the suit itself could not have been filed because of his readiness and willingness, and so he was not required to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and, therefore, does not incur ejectment, has to be rejected. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that mere desire to pay the rent is not enough. It must be translated into action. The tenant was under an obligation to comply with the demand and in any case to explain as to how, in his view, nothing was due or a lesser amount was due, and to have paid that amount. Not having done so, he loses the protection of the Rent Act and, therefore, would be liable to be evicted on account of failure to comply with the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In this view of the matter, the decree of ejectment passed by the Trial Court and confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge cannot be disturbed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2626 of 2007

Decided On: 21.08.2009

Girish Gangadhar Agrawal

Vs.

 Jiteshkumar Hasmukha Vakhariya

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Chavan, J.

Citation: 2009(6) MHLJ 875

Print Page

Whether notice U/S 15 of Maharashtra rent control Act demanding higher rent is valid?

 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

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to issue notice U/S 106 of transfer of property Act for eviction of tenant?

 In the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of  Shantaben
Harilal Brahmbhatt (supra), it was held that in a suit by landlord to recover
possession of the suit premises, it was necessary to terminate the tenancy of the
tenant.  As in said case the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 did not terminate the
tenancy, the same was held to be invalid.       It is not possible to agree with
aforesaid view as taken.   The provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1999 are
clear wherein the stipulation is only with regard to demand of standard rent
and permitted increases. In absence of any requirement of terminating the
lease, insistence of compliance with provisions of Section 106(1) of the Act of
1882 would be going beyond said statutory provisions.
In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the Constitution
Bench   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  V.   Dhanpal   Chettier   V.   Yasoda
Ammal 1979 Mh.L.J. 773 (SC) wherein in paragraph 17 it has been observed
thus :  
“ …. determination  of a lease in accordance with  the Transfer  of
Property   Act   is   unnecessary   and   a   mere   surplusage   because   the
landlord cannot get eviction even after such determination.  The tenant
continues to be so even thereafter.  That being so, making out a case
under the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it
is   not   obligatory   to   found   the   proceeding   on   the   basis   of   the
determination of the lease by issue of a notice in accordance with
section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.”   
It is thus clear that notice to terminate the tenancy under Section

106   of   the   Act   of   1882   is   not   necessary   when   eviction   is   sought   under
provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1999. 
10.   In   so   far   as   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in   case   of  Pallawi
Resources Ltd. (supra), it has been observed that the entire statute has to be
read as a whole and not in isolation ignoring other provisions of the statute. On
a plain reading of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1999, it is clear
that in absence of any requirement of terminating the lease, compliance with
provisions   of   Section   106(1)   is   not   necessary.     The   decision   in   case   of
Tarunkumar (supra) therefore supports the stand of the respondent.    
11.  In view of aforesaid, the notice dated 18/03/2006 issued by the
respondent under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1999 cannot be
faulted.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.252 OF  2014

Baban  Kisan Sarad, vs Abdul Hafiz Abdul Ajij Khan, 

CORAM  :  A.S.CHANDURKAR J.
  DATE   :  MARCH 11, 2015
Citation;2016(1) ALLMR 718

Print Page

Whether notice demanding higher rent than agreed is valid?

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 bad-in-law and the suit was not maintainable. It is clear from the various decisions of this Court that the notice was not bad-in-law and it was open for the respondent-tenant 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.

Bombay High Court

Smt.Fehameeda Begum vs Shri Abdul Hafiz on 11 February, 2013

Bench: V. A. Naik

Citation: 2013(4)ABR877, 2013(3)ALLMR257, 2013(3)BomCR877, 2013(2)MhLj524

Print Page

Whether tenant can be evicted from tenanted premises on ground of non payment of water charges?

Equivalent Citation: 2008(5)MhLj955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

W.P. No. 2821 of 2008

Decided On: 03.07.2008

Appellants: Ravindra D. Ahirkar
Vs.
Respondent: Ravikishore S/o Ramkisanji Pashine and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Tenancy - Eviction - Water Charges - Sections 7(8), 12, 15 and 15(2) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Petitioner-tenant filed present writ petition against order of his eviction from suit promises on account of water/revised water charges - Petitioner contended that Section 15(2) of Act does not permit default in payment of water charges as ground for eviction of tenant as amount of water charges cannot be constituent of permitted increases - It is further contended that notice claiming arrears of water charges for relevant period is defective because there is claim in respect of future demand for water charges and Section 15 of Act contemplates only amounts due - Held, perusal of Section 7(8), 12 and 15 of Act show that water charges/revised water charges have been treated by legislature as part of rent - This appears to have been deliberately made by legislature in order not to have loose end in provision about inclusion of water charges/revised water charges into rent - Admittedly, rent can be increased and such increased rent would also fall in category of permitted increases - Thus, water charges/revised water charges become part of rent and consequently submission made by petitioner will have to be turned down - Notice issued by respondent claiming water charges/revised water charges from petitioner is clearly for relevant period which is about a period of nine months - Demand for water charges was served on respondent on relevant dates - Therefore, even if these two dates are taken into consideration to find out whether amount of water charges are due or not, same can be termed as amount due - Hence, there is no merit in writ petition and same is dismissed accordingly

Print Page

Whether mere desire to pay rent is sufficient to avoid eviction under S 15 of maharashtra rent control Act?

The tenant had not deposited the amount in arrears within 90 days of receipt of suit summons. He did not deposit the rent due during the pendency of the lis from time to time regularly as per the chart made available by the petitioner. Initially, the deposits were delayed by a month or two, but thereafter the deposits were not regular. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the rent was payable by the year, these deviations by a month or two do not matter. Yet the fact remains that the tenant had neglected and failed to pay the amount of rent as on 1-10-1987 within 90 days of notice of demand and even within 90 days of service of suit summons. He has also not been regular in depositing the rent and taxes during the pendency of the lis. The contention of the tenant that since the suit itself could not have been filed because of his readiness and willingness, and so he was not required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and, therefore, does not incur ejectment, has to be rejected. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that mere desire to pay the rent is not enough. It must be translated into action. The tenant was under an obligation to comply with the demand and in any case to explain as to how, in his view, nothing was due or a lesser amount was due, and to have paid that amount. Not having done so, he loses the protection of the Rent Act and, therefore, would be liable to be evicted on account of failure to comply with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Bombay High Court

Girish Gangadhar Agrawal vs Jiteshkumar Hasmukha Vakhariya on 21 August, 2009

Bench: R. C. Chavan

Citation: 2010(3)BomCR766, 2009(6)MhLj875

Print Page

Whether court can direct eviction of tenant as per S 15 of Maharashtra rent control if he is habitual defaulter in payment of rent?

Tenancy - Eviction - Legality of - Sections 15(1), 15(2) and 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Act) - Trial Court decreed suit for eviction partly directing Appellant-tenant to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 9,980 for thirty-six months due since prior to institution of suit - On Appeal, Appellate Court maintained order of trial Court directing Appellant-tenant to pay arrears of rent to Respondent-landlord and decree of eviction for want of compliance of provisions of Section 15(3) of Act - Single Judge of present Court, dismissed Writ Petition of Appellant-tenant, which was filed to challenge orders of trial Court and Appellate Court - Hence, present Appeal - Whether decree of eviction for non-compliance of provisions of Section 15(3) of Act, was sustainable, despite the fact that Section 15(2) of Act, was complied with - Held, right of landlord to file suit for ejectment of tenant on grounds available under general law was restricted by a Special law i.e. Act in a limited way to certain grounds for seeking eviction - Protection-relief against forfeiture, available to statutory tenant, was not absolute but conditional depending upon tenant paying or tendering rent, interest and, costs of suit in Court as directed by Court - Court could exercise discretion to pay appropriate amount due, to landlord out of amount deposited in Court by tenant in such a suit - Ingredients of Section 15(2) and (3) of Act, were not germane when landlord's grievance was that his tenant did not pay or was not ready and willing to pay - Tenant would be required to prove that he was ready and willing to pay rent i.e. that quantum of rent which formed subject matter of landlord's grievance - Factors relevant for deciding mental habit of tenant to commit defaults were determinative under said Section 15(1) of Act - Therefore, a tenant, by either not paying or not being ready and willing to pay rent due, was liable to be evicted by landlord because of his blameworthy conduct subsequent to pre-suit statutory notice demanding rental arrears and also during pendency of suit instituted by landlord on ground of non-payment of arrears of rent - Tenant who disobeyed legal provisions under Section 15(1) of Act, could be evicted independently, though such tenant might not necessarily be in arrears of rent on date of institution of suit - A tenant who was prompted or induced to pay only after service of legal notice or after service of Court summons could not be viewed as a tenant who either paid or was ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases - Habitual irregular payment of rent and permitted increases by tenant would prejudice and jeopardize very survival of such landlords who survived on rental income only - Therefore, such a tenant who might be habitually irregular in payment of standard rent and permitted increases could invite eviction in view of Section 15(1) of Act, when Court considered case of such a tenant who committed breach of conditions of tenancy as also remained habitual in rental arrears - In such exceptional case, provisions of Section 15(1) of Act, were applicable and procedural compliances under Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of Act, would not apply - Concurrent finding that Appellant/tenant was a habitual defaulter upheld by Single Judge was sought to be wrongly projected by associating it with requirements of Section 15(2) and (3) of Act, to an undue extent - That co-relation could be only to limited extent of judging conduct of tenant during pendency of Suit as it was relevant to return finding on habitual defaults - Dismissal of Appellant's Petition by Single Judge was upheld - Appeal dismissed

Bombay High Court

Chandiram Dariyanumal Ahuja vs Akola Zilla Shram Wahtuk Sahakari on 23 October, 2012

Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale

Citation: 2013(2)ABR531, 2013(1)ALLMR137, 2013(3)BomCR822, 2013(1)MhLj28

Print Page

Whether notice U/S 15 of Maha Rent Control Act demanding higher rent than rent agreed between landlord and tenant is valid?

Equivalent Citation: 2013(4)ABR877, 2013(3)ALLMR257, 2013(3)BomCR877, 2013(2)MhLj524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 4253/2012

Decided On: 11.02.2013

Smt. Fehameeda Begum  Vs.  Shri Abdul Hafiz

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V.A. Naik, J.

Tenancy - Validity of notice - Whether notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 demanding higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and tenant was bad-in-law or whether notice would be valid - Held, it was clear from the various decisions that the notice was not bad-in-law and it was open for Respondent-tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent - 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 Act - Impugned judgment quashed - Petition allowed.

Print Page

Whether competent authority under Maharashtra rent control Act should conduct regular trial?

Comparison   of   provisions   of   Maharashtra   Rent   Act   and 
Delhi   Rent   Act   shows   that   provisions   like   sub­section   (3)   and 
explanation (b) for the purpose of section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent 
Act are not there in the Delhi Rent Act. Section 24(3) lays down that 
the   Competent   Authority   shall   not   entertain   any   claim   of   whatever 
nature  from  any  other   person  who   is not  licensee  according  to  the 
agreement of licence. Explanation (b) for the purpose of section 24 

provides that an agreement of licence in writing shall be conclusive 
evidence   of   fact   stated   therein.     Such   provision   is   not   there   in   the 
Delhi Rent Act.  That apart, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 
the cases of Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Indrajeet Kaur 
(supra) will  apply to the eviction proceedings under sections 15 & 16 
that   are   to   be   tried   by   the   Court   specified   in   section   33   of   the 
Maharashtra Rent Act.  For deciding the proceedings under sections 15 
& 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, the regular trial is required to be 

conducted and explanation (b) to section 24 and provisions of Chapter 
VIII are not applicable to such proceedings.   The proceedings under 
Chapter VIII are to be tried by the  Competent Authority keeping in 
mind provisions of section 24 and Chapter VIII viz. sections 39, 41 to 
44 and 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Act and not by the Court specified 
by section 33.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3886 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2184 OF 2010

AMI Merchandising Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others


CORAM :   R.G.KETKAR, J.
                
  PRONOUNCED ON :   03rd April,  2014

Citation;2014(4) ALLMR 643 Bom

Print Page