SMT. SHSHILABEN HARILAL JOSHI SINCE DECEASED THR LRS. JYOTI HARSUKHRAI JOSHI AND ORS. v. SMT. TRIVENIBEN BHIKHALAL BUSA AND ORS.
Upholding Eviction Decree: Tenant's Failure to Comply with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act by Filing Rent Deposit Application Beyond the Stipulated 90-Day Period.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:52875
Decision Date: 02-12-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Civil Procedure
Case Brief
- Facts: The Respondents filed a suit for eviction against the Applicants (tenants) in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, based on arrears of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The Applicants filed a Civil Revision Application challenging the legality and validity of these judgments. A demand notice was issued to the tenant on February 14, 2007, and received on February 22, 2007. The tenant applied for deposit of rent on March 10, 2008, which was beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay through a Civil Revision Application challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Mumbai.
- Issue: Whether the tenant's application for deposit of rent, filed beyond the 90-day period from the date of service of summons as prescribed under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, constitutes sufficient compliance to avoid eviction?
- Holding: No, the tenant's application for deposit of rent, filed after the 90-day period, does not constitute sufficient compliance with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the eviction decree is upheld.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act provides an opportunity for a tenant in default to avoid eviction by paying the arrears of rent, permitted increases, and simple interest within 90 days from the date of service of the suit summons. The court emphasized that filing an application within 90 days is mandatory. Since the tenant filed the application after approximately 210 days, it was beyond the prescribed period. The Court noted the counsel's submission that there is no provision to condone the delay. The court also observed that the applicants were not using the suit premises for the last six years. Therefore, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the Civil Revision Application.