Bombay High Court
Madankumar Kanji Joshi vs Kausalyabai Ramdas Shriwas ... on 12 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:10632
1 cra 13.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13 OF 2018
Madankumar Kanji Joshi .. Applicant
Versus
Kausalyabai Ramdas Shriwas
Since deceased through her L.Rs.
Smt. Dayabai Gangavisan Shriwas
and others .. Respondents
Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri Nirmal R. Dayama,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2-A
to 2-E and 3-A to 3-D.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR ORDER ON : 07.03.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 12.03.2026
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally.
2. Unsuccessful landlord has preferred this revision
application, who sought eviction on the ground of default and bonafide requirement under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereafter referred as to the "Act"). A shop premises of 10 x 10 feet was let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month. The possession was solicited on the ground that it was needed for the 2 cra 13.18 business of his son. It is contended that the respondent committed default from 01.02.1999 to 31.10.1999 to the extent of Rs. 585/- towards rent and taxes from 1982 to the tune of Rs. 5,301/-. The tenancy was terminated and possession was asked for. The suit was filed on 05.11.1999.
3. Respondent contested the suit on the count that the rent of the suit premises was not Rs. 65/- per month initially. Thereafter, it was increased. The arrears are stated to have been sent by money order after receiving the notice within 30 days. An application for standard rent was submitted before the Trial Court. The claim for bonafide requirement is disputed on the count that there are various properties available at the disposal of the applicant for the commercial need.
4. Civil M. A. No. 68 of 1999 was preferred for fixation of standard rent. After conducting enquiry Trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 65/- per month excluding the taxes vide order dated 20.04.2001. On 05.05.2001 the arrears of rent from 01.02.1999 to 31.10.1999 and arrears of taxes from 1982 to 1999 and arrears of rent from 01.10.1999 to 30.06.2001 were paid by the respondent.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 14.11.2011. Being aggrieved R.C.A. No. 344 of 2014 was preferred and it was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 20.09.2017. By concurrent findings of fact applicant is non 3 cra 13.18 suited for eviction on the ground of default as well as bonafide requirement.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Mukul Kulkarni appearing for the applicant submits that the standard rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month excluding the taxes. The deposit of rent of twenty months from 01.10.1999 to 30.06.2001 on 05.05.2001 amounts to non compliance of Sec. 12(3) of the Act. Both the Courts below have committed error of jurisdiction in holding that the ground of default is not made out. It is submitted that the depositing of the arrears in pursuance of the notice would not absolve the tent from punctually depositing the rent and the taxes for the future period. It is further submitted that no specific premises is pointed out which is suitable and available with the applicant to accommodate business of his son. The findings on the ground of bonafide requirement are perverse. It is submitted that landlord is the best judge of his needs and availability of other immovable properties cannot obliterate the requirement, if the suit premises is most suitable.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Manish Navandar appearing for the respondents would submit that there are concurrent findings of facts which are plausible and reasonable. It is submitted that respondents have deposited the arrears before the Trial Court and they are punctual in depositing the dues not only in the District Court, but in the High Court also. My attention is adverted to the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in 4 cra 13.18 Civil Application No. 763 of 2023. It is submitted that money order of Rs. 585/- towards arrears from 01.02.1999 to 31.10.1999 was refused. It is submitted that respondents have produced ample evidence to show that immovable properties suitable for the commercial activity is available with the applicant. Mr. Navandar has placed on record copies of judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 253 of 2015, which was confirmed in the Supreme Court to show that a decree of shop premises was passed in favour of the landlord, which is adjacent one.
8. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. Both Courts below recorded findings on the ground of default as well as bonafide requirement by assigning elaborate reasons.
9. The rent was fixed at Rs. 65/- per month excluding the taxes. The arrears of Rs. 585/- was sent by money order by the tenant, but it was refused. Thereafter it was deposited in the Court. The taxes from 1982 to 1989 amounting to Rs. 5301.26 was deposited in the Court. Arrears of the rent from 01.10.1999 to 30.06.2001 was deposited on 05.05.2001. Learned counsel for the applicant has objection for depositing twenty months rent by one go on 05.05.2001. A careful reading of Sec. 12(3) of the Act does not show that tenant is expected to deposit the future rent on month to month basis. In the present case respondents have cleared the arrears after receiving the notice. No case is made out that he has committed default for the period when the matter 5 cra 13.18 was in the Appellate Court or in the High Court. Civil Application No. 8763 of 2023 was filed by them and by order dated 31st July, 2023, they were permitted to deposit the rent. The respondents are punctual in depositing the amount.
10. Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni has relied on the judgment dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Balaji Pratapji Pandy Vs. Shyam Kisan Sharma in Civil Revision Application No. 95 of 2014 to buttress that if Sec. 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act is not complied with, then protection to the tenant is not available and the Court has no jurisdiction to extend any period. In that case the deposit of arrears of rent was not made within 90 days from the date of service of summons. Present case is governed by Sec. 12(3) of the Act and it is contemplated that tenant should pay the arrears on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix. The issues in the present case were settled on 20.02.2002 and first date is said to be 19.08.2006. The respondent deposited arrears on 05.05.2001, hence he is entitled to receive protection. The judgment will not help the applicant.
11. Further reliance is sought on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Yusufbhai Noormohammed Jodhpurwala Vs. Mohamed Sabir Ibrahim Byavarwala reported in (2015) 6 SCC 526, which was inter alia relied upon by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Balaji Pratapji Pandy Vs. Shyam Kisan Sharma (supra). I have already observed that before first date of hearing the 6 cra 13.18 tenant deposited the amount and, therefore, they are saved from rigor of Sec. 12(3) of the Act. This judgment will also be of no help to the applicant.
12. Both courts below have considered the material on record in holding that ground of default has not been made out. Those are well founded and cannot be termed as perverse or patently illegal.
13. Respondents have placed on record the property extracts at Exhibit Nos. 156 to 169. The property extracts at Exhibit 160 to 169 are about the commercial premises available at the disposal of the applicant. The shops are available with the landlord, which are in the market area. Both the Courts below concurrently recorded that applicant is unable to prove ground of bonafide requirement. I find no perversity or illegality in those findings.
14. Mr. Navandar, learned counsel for the respondents has pressed into service the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in Civil Revision Application No. 253 of 2015 arising out of the proceedings of eviction under the Act by the self same applicant against Kailas, who happened to be tenant of the premises adjacent to the disputed shop. The landlord in that case was non suited by the Courts below. But high Court allowed the revision and passed decree of eviction. The decree was further confirmed by the Supreme Court. The possession 7 cra 13.18 was handed over to the landlord by the then tenant. This is an additional circumstance to corroborate the defence of the respondents.
15. I find that no case is made out by the applicant for causing interference of this Court. The civil revision application sans merits. It is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/March 26