High Court dismissed civil revision challenging eviction decree on grounds of rent arrears and landlord hardship, finding tenant failed to deposit arrears under Section 15(3) of Rent Act and proved no attempt to find alternate accommodation.
Civil revision application dismissed; pending civil application dismissed as infructuous.
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.
26-CRA-33-2018
SGA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17045 OF 2022 IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2018
Alkabai Chintaman Patil
… Applicant
Versus
Fula Bhila Patil and others
… Respondents
Mr.Ram S. Shinde – Advocate for Applicant Mr.Milind Patil – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 1st March, 2023
PER COURT :
1/13
26-CRA-33-2018
of the suit property being five rooms situated at plot no.28 of survey no.537/1A. It was the case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that respondent no.3 was inducted as tenant for a period of three months from October, 2007 to December, 2007 on monthly rent of Rs.1800/-. Period of tenancy was subsequently extended on the request of respondent no.3. It was the case of respondent nos.1 and 2 that respondent no.3 refused to vacate the suit premises and also failed to make payment of rent and respondent no.3 was in arrears of rent from January, 2008 to September, 2008 for an amount of Rs.16,200/-. Hence, respondent nos.1 and 2 issued notice dated 30th June, 2008 demanding arrears of rent and also called upon the respondent no.3 to hand over possession of the suit premises. Since respondent no.3 failed to comply with the notice, Regular Civil Suit No. 288 of 2008 was filed on the ground of default as well as personal bonafide requirement.
2/13
26-CRA-33-2018
joined as defendant no.2. Applicant filed her written statement and contended that, in fact she was the tenant of the suit premises, and that, she had carried out repairs and constructed entire floor at her expenses. It was contended that there was an oral agreement in her favour to sell the suit premises. Defendant no.2-applicant also filed application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.114 of 2009 for fixation of standard rent.
3/13
26-CRA-33-2018
hence they required it for the purpose of residence as well as for clinic. Learned trial Court has examined the pleadings as well as evidence on record with respect to the bonafide requirement of the respondents/landlords and has accepted the case of the respondents/landlords that the suit premises was required by the respondents/landlords as pleaded. Thus, learned trial Court by accepting the case of the respondents/landlords on the ground of default as well as bonafide requirement passed the decree of eviction thereby directing both the defendants i.e. the applicant as well as respondent no.3 to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the respondents-landlords.
4/13
26-CRA-33-2018
bonafide use as pleaded by them for the purpose of their son and daughter-in-law. With respect to the point of arrears of rent, the first appellate Court has held that the amount of rent due and payable to the respondents-landlords till filing of the suit i.e. upto 20th October, 2008 was more than Rs.30,000/-. The first appellate Court thus disbelieved the case of the applicant/defendant no.2 with respect to an amount of Rs.30,000/- that has been claimed to have been spent by the applicant towards construction. Thus, first appellate Court confirmed the reasoning recorded by the trial Court with respect to the defendants being in arrears of rent. First Appellate Court also specifically recorded that there was nothing produced on record to show that during pendency of the suit, the defendants had deposited any amount towards arrears of rent.
5/13
26-CRA-33-2018
Court has also held that for the purpose of deciding the comparative hardship in the facts of the case, it could not be said that the defendants would suffer any hardship as there is absolutely no attempt made to search any alternate accommodation. Hence, the first appellate Court held that issue of comparative hardship was also required to be held in favour of the respondents-landlords. Thus, the first appellate court by re-examining the entire evidence on record has confirmed the reasonings given by the trial Court in respect of default and bonafide requirement and confirmed the decree of eviction on both the grounds. Therefore, the present civil revision application is filed by the defendant no.2.
6/13
26-CRA-33-2018
landlords issued notice to the husband of the applicant on his address at Surat and suit was also filed by giving the address of her husband at Surat. In such circumstances, the applicant had appeared in the suit and prayed for adding her as a party defendant as she was the tenant of the suit premises. It is further submitted that since there was no notice issued to the applicant, there could not have been any decree on the ground of default passed against the applicant.
7/13
26-CRA-33-2018
8/13
26-CRA-33-2018
law, who were in medical profession, who required the suit premises for their residence as well as for their clinic. He submitted that there is nothing brought on record to show that the plea of requirement was not genuine. He submitted that the point of comparative hardship is also dealt with by the first appellate Court and hence, the decree passed by both the courts on the ground of default as well as bonafide requirement is required to be confirmed and that there is no merit in the arguments made on behalf of the applicant. He, therefore, prays that civil revision application be dismissed.
I have perused the record of the present civil revision application. The case of the applicant that she is the tenant of the suit premises, and therefore without issuing any demand notice, there should not be any decree passed is concerned, the same has no merit. The applicant appeared in the suit claiming to be a tenant in respect of the suit premises. She filed an application for fixation of the standard rent. Though, the application was filed for fixation of the standard rent, there was no attempt made for fixation of any interim rent and no attempt
9/13
26-CRA-33-2018
was made to deposit the amount towards the arrears as demanded. The Applicant failed to prove that she had any independent tenancy rights. Service of demand notice on respondent no. 3 is not disputed. There is nothing produced on record to show that demand notice was complied with. Section 15(3) of the Rent Act specifically provides that no decree for eviction shall be passed by the court in any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of standard rent and permitted increases if, within a period of ninety days from the date of service of the summons of the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due together with simple interest on the amount of arrears at fifteen per cent per annum and thereafter continues to pay or tenders in court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. In the present case, though the applicant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent nothing is produced on record to show that the applicant had deposited the amount of arrears of rent as demanded in the demand notice or as required under section 15(3) of the Rent Act within ninety days in the Court. The case
10/13
26-CRA-33-2018
of the applicant that she had spent Rs. 30000/- on construction of the suit premises is also disbelieved by both the Courts. The learned Advocate for the applicant was unable to show any relevance of the case sought to be made out by the applicant regarding spending the said amount and the claim of the applicant that there was an oral agreement for sale in her favour. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions on behalf of the applicant.
11/13
26-CRA-33-2018
that there were other properties available for their personal bonafide use, nothing is shown to me that there was any attempt made to produce on record any evidence in support of the said submission. Evidence as discussed by both the Courts and reasoning recorded with respect to the bonafide requirement do not require any interference. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded by both the Courts, while accepting the case of the respondents/landlords for requirement of the suit premises for their personal bonafide use. The applicant has failed to establish her submission that there are other premises available for the respondents-landlords, and therefore, they do not require the suit premises for their personal bonafide use. First Appellate Court has rightly dealt with the issue of comparative hardship by recording that the tenant is under obligation to plead and prove that when the suit for possession on the ground of bonafide requirement is filed, it is obligatory on the tenant to plead and prove that there was an attempt made for searching an alternate premises and inspite of the same, the tenant was unable to get any alternate accommodation. In the present case, there was no such case
12/13
26-CRA-33-2018
made out by the applicant to show that any such attempt was made by her.
13/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether eviction decree on ground of default was valid without mandatory notice to the applicant.
Whether the landlord established personal bonafide requirement for eviction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alkabai Chintaman Patil
Fula Bhila Patil
GAURI GODSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
