Young Men’s Christian Association v. Shri. Atul David

Judgment

#1) Heard finally with consent of learned Advocates forthe respective parties. 2)The present petition is filed by the unsuccessfulplaintiff, who had filed a suit for eviction against respondent/tenant under Section 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra

#01. WP 5762.23.odt2Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, “the MRC Act”). 3)It is the case of the plaintiff/landlord that therespondent/tenant was in arrears of rent from May, 1995 andonwards. It is stated that the plaintiff/landlord had issued anotice calling upon the respondent/tenant to clear the arrearsof rent as contemplated under Section 15 of the MRC Act, despite which the tenant did not clear the arrears of rentwithin the stipulated period of 90 days, as a consequence ofwhich suit for eviction came to be filed against him. It is alsothe case of the plaintiff that it is a public trust registeredunder the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is in needof the suit premises for its bona fide need. The pleadings withrespect to bona fide need are that the building in which suitpremises are located, comprises of an old structure which isaround 100 years old and therefore, it was necessary todemolish and reconstruct the structure.4)The respondent/tenant opposed the suit by filingwritten statement. The contention regarding default inpayment of rent is denied, likewise, the case of bona fideneed is disputed in the written statement.

#01. WP 5762.23.odt35)Based on rival pleadings, the learned Trial Courtrecorded evidence and dismissed the suit vide judgment anddecree dated 06.12.2018. The learned Trial Court has heldthat the plaintiff had failed to prove its case of bona fideneed. As regards Section 15 of the MRC Act, the learned TrialCourt has recorded that the suit was filed on 11.10.2005 andthe respondent/tenant deposited amount of Rs.31,802/-towards arrears of rent on 03.01.2006. It is also stated thatalthough the rent was payable @ of Rs.270/- per month, thedefendant had deposited amount @ of Rs.1,000/- per month.In view of this finding, the learned Trial Court found that theplaintiff had failed to prove that respondent/tenant hascommitted default with respect to payment of rent.6)Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decreedismissing the suit, the plaintiff/landlord preferred appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.77 of 2019, which was alsodismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.02.2021.7)The learned First Appellate Court has concurredwith the learned Trial Court in holding that the plaintiff/landlord failed to prove the case of bona fide need. However,

#01. WP 5762.23.odt4as regards arrears of rent, the learned First Appellate Courtfound that the respondent/tenant was in arrears of rent forthe period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2005. However, thelearned First Appellate Court has recorded that on the dateon which the suit summons were served on therespondent/tenant, the entire amount of arrears of rentalongwith water charges and corporation taxes weredeposited by the respondent/tenant in the Court, as aconsequence of which decree for eviction under Section 15could not be passed. 8)These concurrent decrees dismissing the suit foreviction are subject matter of challenge in the presentpetition.9)The petition was initially allowed vide judgmentdated 28.11.2024, however, application for review filed byrespondent/tenant came to be allowed vide judgment dated17.06.2025 and the petition was ordered to be heard afresh. 10)While allowing the application for review, this Courthas observed in paragraph 3 that while the petition wasearlier decided vide judgment dated 28.11.2024, the Court

#01. WP 5762.23.odt5was made to believe that the tenant had not paid the rent ordeposited the rent in the Court while the civil suit waspending. It is observed in paragraph 4 of the judgment thatalthough there were some delay in depositing the rent, thesame was intermittently being deposited while the civil suitwas pending. Apart from this, it was found that copy of theplaint which is filed on record in the petition indicates thatparagraphs 4A to 4C are part of the plaint. This Courtobserved that although the application for amendment wasallowed by the learned Trial Court, the petition filed by thedefendant/tenant challenging the order allowing theamendment application was quashed and set aside by thisCourt and as such, paragraphs 4A to 4C did not constitutepart of the plaint. This Court found that the said fact was alsonot brought to its notice while the petition was decided videjudgment dated 28.11.2024. The application for review wasallowed in view of the above reasons. The petition wasordered to be restored to file for consideration afresh. Accordingly, the petition is taken up for hearing on merits.

#01. WP 5762.23.odt611)As regards the case of bona fide need, this Court isin agreement with the findings recorded by both the learnedCourts that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to make out acase of bona fide need. The witness of the plaintiffcategorically admitted during the course of his cross-examination that the copy of by-laws of theplaintiff/petitioner was not produced on record and that hehad no knowledge about the aims and objects and by-laws ofthe Trust. 12)In view of such categorical admission in the cross-examination, in the considered opinion of this Court, thefindings of fact recorded by the learned Courts with respectto bona fide need do not warrant any interference. 13)It must, however, be stated that apart from Section16 (1)(g), the plaintiff also invoked to Section 15 for seekingdecree for eviction. It is not in dispute that notice for demandis served on the respondent/tenant before filing of the civilsuit and that the arrears of rent were not deposited by therespondent/tenant within the stipulated period of 90 days. Itis also not in dispute that the suit is filed after period of 90

#01. WP 5762.23.odt7days, from the date on which notice for demand of arrears ofrent were served on the respondent/tenant. 14)The learned First Appellate Court has dealt with theissue of arrears of rent in paragraph 19 of its judgment. It hasrecorded that the defendant did not dispute that the rent ofthe suit property was Rs.270/- per month and that it wasexclusive of electricity charges, water charges andcorporation taxes. It is further observed that the defendantcame up with a case that the suit property was in adilapidated condition and there was urgent need to carry outrepairs and further that the plaintiff asked the defendant tocarry out the necessary repairs and to adjust the cost thereoftowards the rent. It further appears from reading ofparagraph 19 that the defendant contended that expenditureto the tune of Rs.20,000/- was incurred towards repairs andthat the plaintiff did not adjust the same towards the rent. The learned First Appellate Court has recorded that thedefendant did not enter the witness box to prove his defenceand, further, that the evidence of plaintiff’s witness regardingarrears of rent from 01.04.2002 till 31.03.2005, along with

#01. WP 5762.23.odt8arrears of water charges to the tune of Rs.14,656/- andcorporation taxes to the tune of Rs.4,186/- was not shaken. 15)This finding of fact recorded by the learned FirstAppellate Court is based on appreciation of evidence. Theplaintiff has stated that the defendant had not paid the rent, water charges and corporation taxes for the said period. Thedefendant could not prove its defence of set-off the sameagainst expenses incurred for repairs. In that view of thematter, the finding recorded by the learned First AppellateCourt regarding the defendant/tenant being in arrears of rentis just and proper. 16)However, the learned First Appellate Court hasrefused to pass a decree for eviction under Section 15 on theground that on 03.01.2006, the defendant had deposited sumof Rs.31,802/- with the learned Trial Court. The learned FirstAppellate Court has decided the issue as an issue with respectto recovery of rent. The learned First Appellate Court has notdealt with the right of plaintiff/landlord to seek eviction oftenant on the ground of arrears of rent in view of Section 15of the Rent Act.

#01. WP 5762.23.odt917)The defendant was in arrears of rent at least from01.04.2002. It is not in dispute that notice was served ondefendant and suit for eviction was filed after the stipulatedperiod of 90 days from the date of service of said notice. Thedefendant/tenant did not clear the arrears of rent within aperiod of 90 days. After service of the suit summons, thedefendant appeared in the suit and deposited amount ofRs.31,802/- with the learned Trial Court. This depositincludes payment of water charges and corporation taxes andan amount of Rs.12,960/- towards rent from 01.04.2002 till31.03.2006 (Rs.270 X 48 Months). The defendant did notdeposit arrears of rent with simple interest @ 15% perannum, as contemplated under Section 15(3) of the Act. 18)The record of the case also indicates that after filingof the suit, the defendant did not deposit the rent regularlywith the learned Trial Court. It will be appropriate to refer tothe statement of deposit of rent filed on record in the presentpetition by the respondent/defendant (record page 142).Perusal of the statement will demonstrate that rent for a

#01. WP 5762.23.odt10period of 4 years, along with water charges and corporationtaxes were deposited on 03.01.2006. Thereafter, a furtheramount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited on 10.07.2015(wrongly typed as 10.07.2025). The suit is decided on06.12.2018 and the appeal is decided on 12.02.2021. Theseare the only amounts that were deposited with the Courtwhile the suit and appeal were pending.19)Thus, there is a clear default on the part of thedefendant/tenant in clearing the arrears of rent within aperiod of 90 days from the date of service of demand notice, as provided under Section 15(2) of the MRC, Act as alsodefault in depositing the arrears of rent with simple interest@ 15% per annum within a period of 90 days from the dateof service of suit summons and a further default in makingpayment of rent regularly during the pendency of the civilsuit.20) In view of the aforesaid, the learned Courts oughtto have granted a decree for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Section 15 of the MRC Act. The facts of the casewill demonstrate that the respondent/tenant failed to make

#01. WP 5762.23.odt11payment of rent regularly, resulting in breach of the mandateof Section 15(1) of the MRC Act, followed by failure to cleararrears of rent within the notice period as contemplatedunder Section 15(2) and also did not deposit arrears of rentwith interest @ 15% per annum within a period of 90 daysfrom the date of service of suit summons and further failed todeposit the rent regularly with the learned Trial Court. For allthese reasons, decree for eviction under Section 15 of theMRC Act needs to be passed in favour of theplaintiff/landlord.21)It will be pertinent to mention that although thecopy of plaint that is annexed to the petition is not a correctcopy, it needs to be mentioned that paragraphs which werewrongly shown as part of the plaint are pertaining to bonafide need. This Court has concurred with the opinion of thelearned Courts that the plaintiff-landlord has failed to makeout a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. Asregards non-disclosure of fact that rent was deposited withthe learned Trial Court, the admitted facts disclose that rentwas deposited only on two occasions. The undisputed facts of

#01. WP 5762.23.odt12the case with respect to deposit of arrears of rent will alsodemonstrate that decree for eviction under Section 15 isunavoidable. The decree for eviction needs to be passedunder Section 15 of the MRC Act, even after taking intoconsideration the deposit of rent.22)In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to beallowed and is allowed in the following terms:- (i)The Judgment and decree dated 12.02.2021 passedin Reg. Civil Appeal No.77 of 2019 by learned Ad-hoc DistrictJudge-4, Nagpur and judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018passed in Regular Civil Suit No.570 of 2005 by learnedJudge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur are hereby quashed andset aside. (ii)Regular Civil Suit No.570 of 2005 decided by thelearned Judge Small Causes Court, Nagpur, dated 06.12.2018is partly allowed by granting decree for eviction in favour ofthe petitioner/plaintiff under Section 15 of the MRC Act andfurther directing an enquiry into mesne profits from the dateof institution of the suit till delivery of possession.

#01. WP 5762.23.odt1323)At this stage, the learned Advocate for therespondent/tenant states that the respondent/tenant intendsto assail the judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court andseeks that execution of the present decree may be stayed fora reasonable period so as to enable the respondent/tenant toapproach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24)The learned Trial Court and the First AppellateCourt have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The case of bona fide need is also discarded by this Court.25) In view of the aforesaid, it will be appropriate thatthe effect and operation of the present judgment and order isstayed till 05.04.2026. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)Tanmay...