The High Court of Bombay dismissed a civil revision application challenging an appellate order confirming a rent suit decree. The court held the Slum Act declaration had been set aside by a Competent Authority and the revision failed due to non-compliance with Section 15(3) regarding rent demand deposit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
20-CRA-184-2023.doc
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2023
Cherukara Karunakarannair Mohankumar ...Applicant Versus Ghanshyam Brahmadeo Yadav ...Respondent --------------------
Mr. K. K. Malpathak for the Applicant.
Mr. Ankit Tiwar i/b K. P. Tiwari & Co. for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2023
P. C. :
1
20-CRA-184-2023.doc
by the Plaintiff to the Defendant demanding arrears of rent for the period from 1st December, 1984 to 31st December 2008 at the contractual rent amounting to Rs. 14,450/-. As the amount was not paid, by the legal notice dated 16th January, 2009, the tenancy of the Defendant was terminated. Subsequently, the suit came to be filed before the Small Causes Court seeking recovery of possession of the tenanted premises alongwith arrears of rent. In the plaint, apart from the ground of arrears of rent, the case of bonafide requirement was also pleaded. The Trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds. However the Appellate Court negated the issue as regards the bonafide requirement and decreed the suit only in respect of arrears of rent.
2
20-CRA-184-2023.doc
on 24th February, 1992. He also points out that the case of the Defendant as regards the arrears of rent is that as per the first notice which was issued on 14th October 2006 the arrears demanded was 7,100/- and an amount of Rs. 6,250/- was tendered which was refused by the landlord. He has fairly conceded that the second notice based on which the suit for eviction has been filed is dated 16th January, 2009 and the demand was at the contractual rent which he had not paid to the Plaintiff neither deposited in the Court.
3
20-CRA-184-2023.doc
Authority would prevail over this document. As regards the ground of arrears of rent, learned counsel for the Applicant has fairly conceded that the demand notice was received as regards the arrears of rent, however there is non compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3) and the Defendant has not tendered in the Court the amount demanded as arrears of rent.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit is barred under Section 22 of the Slum Act as the premises were declared as slum.
Whether the suit for recovery of rent is maintainable in light of non-compliance with Section 15(3) of the Slum Act.
Whether the Civil Revision Application discloses any jurisdictional error under Section 115 of the CPC warranting interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Cherukara Karunakarannair Mohankumar
Ghanshyam Brahmadeo Yadav
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
