30 August 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Rent >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent case of Joseph Anthony (since deceased) through his legal heir & Another v/s Rukmini Krishna Turbhekar, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked to challenge a judgment and decree issued by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on February 26, 2016. The dispute centers around a suit for eviction due to arrears of rent, which was originally decreed in favor of the landlord. The decision was contested on multiple grounds, including the alleged non-payment of rent and procedural errors related to the deposit of arrears.

Background of the Case:

The Court of Small Causes at Bombay had previously decreed the suit on the basis of arrears of rent, rejecting other grounds for eviction such as illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structures, and bona fide requirement. The defendants, who were the tenants in this case, subsequently appealed the decision. The Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal on May 5, 2022, leading to the present revision application. The primary issue under revision was whether the defendants had complied with the requirements of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act), particularly concerning the payment and deposit of rent arrears.

Legal Arguments and Proceedings:

The defendants' counsel, Ms. Surve, argued that the tenants had deposited the entire arrears of rent, interest, and costs within the stipulated period of 90 days as per Section 15(3) of the MRC Act. According to her, the suit summons was served on Defendant No. 1 on April 2, 2005, and on Defendant No. 2 on April 25, 2003. An application for the deposit was filed on May 3, 2005, but the trial and appellate courts mistakenly recorded the date of this application as October 10, 2005. This error, Ms. Surve contended, led to an unjust decree for eviction.

Additionally, Ms. Surve invoked Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904, arguing that since November 15, 2005, the deadline for deposit, was a holiday, the deposit made on November 16, 2005, should be deemed timely. She supported her argument with precedents from the Supreme Court in M/s. Natwarlal Shamaldas & Co. v. Siloo J. Khan and Mohan Laxman Hede v. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh, asserting that timely deposits prevent eviction.

In opposition, Mr. Haridas, representing the original plaintiff, argued that Section 15(3) of the MRC Act mandates a strict adherence to the 90-day deposit period. He cited judgments from the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde and Yusufbhai Noormohammed Jodhpurwala v. Mohmmed Sabir Ibrahim Byavarwala to emphasize that courts cannot extend statutory deadlines. Furthermore, he argued that any delay in deposit beyond the allowed period renders the decree for eviction inevitable, referencing local judgments such as Chandiram s/o. Dariyanumal Ahuja v. Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha and Laxman s/o. Ghulji Upadhye v. Dr. Vijay Bhojraj Khachne.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

The High Court examined the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the accuracy of the dates associated with the application for deposit. It was established that the application for deposit was indeed filed on May 3, 2005, and not on October 10, 2005, as erroneously recorded by the lower courts. This factual error was deemed significant since it influenced the overall outcome of the case.

Further, the Court acknowledged that the deposit made on November 16, 2005, fell on the next working day after the holiday on November 15, 2005, which was in compliance with Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act. This interpretation ensured that the tenants' action was deemed timely.

The Court also noted that despite the request for deposit in two installments, the entire amount was deposited in one go, which met the statutory requirements under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the findings of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench were flawed due to the factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations of procedural requirements. Consequently, the eviction decree was set aside, and the revision application was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the original suit.

This case underscores the importance of accurate procedural adherence and timely deposits in rent disputes, affirming that procedural delays caused by the Court itself should not unduly disadvantage parties who act in good faith. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory deadlines must be observed strictly, but allowances are made for delays caused by public holidays, aligning with legal precedents on the matter.

  Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999