02 September 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent ruling, the Court addressed the Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the decree issued by a learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court. The decree, dated December 15, 2008, had confirmed an earlier decision to evict the tenant from the suit premises. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed Appeal No. 37 of 2009.

Background of the Case:

The plaintiff initiated a recovery of possession suit (R.A.E. and R. Suit No. 548/1331 of 1993) against the original tenant, Defendant No. 1, based on several grounds: default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, permanent construction, and nuisance. The applicant, who claims to be the son of Defendant No. 1, was impleaded as Defendant No. 2 with allegations of unauthorized subletting. Despite being served summons, Defendant No. 1 did not participate in the suit, leaving Defendant No. 2 to file a written statement and present evidence.

The Small Causes Court, after evaluating the evidence, ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds of rent arrears, unauthorized subletting, and illegal construction. The claim of nuisance was rejected. Defendant No. 2’s appeal against this decree was also dismissed by the Appellate Bench on August 31, 2023.

Arguments and Submissions:

1. Default in Rent Payment:

Defendant No. 2, through counsel Mr. Soni, challenged the validity of the demand notice dated January 26, 1993, arguing it was flawed as it sought rent for a period when the plaintiff was not the landlord. Mr. Soni contended that the plaintiff could only demand rent post-probate issuance in August 1988, thus making the demand for earlier periods illegal. He also cited Gulam Hussein Kalumia v. Mahomed Umar Azizulla, asserting that a tenant's deposit of arrears before trial concludes should prevent eviction.

However, the Court found that the notice, demanding rent from January 1987, was valid. The plaintiff, as a legal heir of the original landlord, had the right to claim rent from this period. Furthermore, even assuming the plaintiff's demand for earlier rent was invalid, the valid demands from August 1988 onwards sufficed. The Court also noted that rent deposits by Defendant No. 2 were irregular and did not cover arrears before the framing of issues on June 18, 2005.

2. Unauthorized Subletting:

Mr. Soni argued that no subletting occurred since Defendant No. 2 was the son of Defendant No. 1, who allegedly traveled frequently and resided intermittently at the suit premises. He presented medical bills to support this claim. However, the Court found this defense unsubstantiated. Defendant No. 1 had not participated in the suit nor provided evidence of her intermittent residence. The lack of foundational pleadings and Defendant No. 1’s absence undermined this defense.

3. Illegal Construction:

Regarding the unauthorized construction, Mr. Soni claimed that the modifications were minor and approved by the landlord. However, the Court emphasized that Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act requires written consent for such alterations. The absence of such documentation led to the acceptance of the ground of illegal construction.

Court’s Findings:

The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench were justified. It upheld the grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, and illegal construction. The Court rejected the arguments related to the invalidity of the demand notice, emphasizing that the tenant’s obligations were not waived by any alleged infirmities in the notice. Furthermore, it dismissed the claims of intermittent residence and unauthorized subletting due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses.

Conclusion:

The Court’s decision to reject the Revision Application reflects a rigorous adherence to legal standards governing landlord-tenant disputes. The findings underscore the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and evidence presentation in rent recovery cases. The judgment also highlights the tenant’s obligations under the Bombay Rent Act, emphasizing that judicial discretion cannot extend statutory protections beyond established limits. The Court’s order permitting the withdrawal of deposited amounts by the plaintiff, coupled with the refusal to extend the interim order, marks a significant step in resolving the tenancy dispute.