Eviction Upheld: Tenant's Rent Default and Bona Fide Need Seal the Decision.


The revisionary jurisdiction of the court was invoked under Section 115 of the CPC to challenge the dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2020, which upheld an eviction decree passed by the Trial Court on 19 November 2019. The eviction was based on two grounds: default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.

Key Findings:

Default in Rent Payment:
The Trial Court and Appellate Court both confirmed that the tenant failed to comply with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act). This section mandates that a tenant must deposit the total arrears of rent with 15% interest and court costs to avoid eviction.

 

 

The tenant deposited only partial amounts and at irregular intervals, failing to adhere strictly to the statutory requirements.

While citing challenges like illiteracy and reliance on legal advice, the tenant's explanations were deemed insufficient as strict compliance is required under the MRC Act.

Bona Fide Requirement:

The plaintiff claimed that his flat was insufficient for his family of seven. Despite minor factual oversights in considering residence specifics, the court upheld that the plaintiff's need was genuine.
Comparative Hardship:
The evidence showed that the tenant’s mother no longer resided with her and that her son lives elsewhere. The Appellate Court found that comparative hardship favored the plaintiff's eviction rather than the tenant’s continued residence.
The court found no palpable errors in the findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts and thus dismissed the revision petition. However, it granted the tenant until 31 March 2025, to vacate the premises, conditional on rent payments and not creating third-party rights. The petition was dismissed with no order on costs.


Section 115., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  

Section 15, Maharashtra Rent Control Act - 1999  

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999