[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Shshilaben Harilal Joshi Since ... vs Smt. Triveniben Bhikhalal Busa And Ors. on 2 December, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:52875
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
Arjun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.562 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by
Sushilaben Harilal Joshi ...Applicants
ARJUN
ARJUN VITTHAL (deleted since deceased)
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR
KUDHEKAR Date: 1(a) Jyoti Harsukhrai Joshi & Ors.
2025.12.03
22:48:08
+0530 Versus
Triveniben Bhikhalal Busa & Ors. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Jaydeep Deo i/b Onkar Y. Gawade, for the Applicants.
Ms. Shagufta Q. Qureshi, for the Respondents.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
PRONOUNCED ON: 02 DECEMBER 2025
UPLOADED ON: 03 DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Deo, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and
Ms. Qureshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
2. By the present Civil Revision Application, the challenge is to the
legality and validity of the Judgment and Decree dated 4th November
2025 passed by the learned Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court,
Mumbai, in Appeal No.53 of 2013 as also to the Judgment and Decree
dated 25th October 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes
Court, Mumbai (Bandra Branch), in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.258/528 of
2007. The learned Trial Court has decreed the Suit on the ground of
default in payment of arrears of the rent and the learned Appellate
Court has confirmed the said decree.
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
3. Perusal of the record shows that the Demand Notice under
Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("Rent Act")
has been issued on 14th February 2007. The said Demand Notice has
been received by the Defendant i.e. present Applicants on 22nd
February 2007 and the same was replied through Advocate on 9th
March 2007. Thereafter, the Respondents filed R.A.E. & R. Suit
No.258/528 of 2007 on 21st June 2007. The summons was served on
4th August 2007 on the Defendant. It is an admitted position that, on
10th March 2008, the Defendant made an application below Exhibit-11
for deposit of rent as contemplated under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act.
The learned Trial Court as also the learned Appellate Court have held
that the said Application dated 10th March 2008 is filed beyond time
prescribed under Section 15(1) and therefore the decree of eviction is
passed.
4. For appreciating the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court
and the learned Appellate Court, it is necessary to set out Section 15 of
the Rent Act, which reads as under :-
"15. No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is
ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted
increases.-- (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the
recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant
pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the,
standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes
and performs the other, conditions of the tenancy, in so far as
they are consistent with the provisions of this Act.
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted
by a landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-
payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until
the expiration of ninety days next after notice in writing of
the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has
been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in
section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(3) No decree for eviction shall be passed by the court in
any suit for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of
standard rent and permitted increase if, within a period of
ninety days from the date of service of the summons of the
suit, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and
permitted increases then due together with simple interest on
the amount of arrears at fifteen per cent per annum; and
thereafter continues to pay or tenders in court regularly such
standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally
decided and also pays cost of the suit as directed by the court.
(4) Pending the disposal of any suit, the court may, out of
any amount paid or tendered by the tenant, pay to the
landlord such amount towards the payment of rent or
permitted increases due to him as the court thinks fit."
(Emphasis added)
5. Thus, Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 specifically provides that, no
decree for eviction shall be passed by the court in any suit for recovery
of possession on the ground of arrears of standard rent and permitted
increase if, within a period of ninety days from the date of service of the
summons of the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard
rent and permitted increases then due together with simple interest on
the amount of arrears at fifteen per cent per annum; and thereafter
continues to pay or tenders in court regularly such standard rent and
permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays cost of
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
the suit as directed by the court.
6. Thus, the tenant has to comply with the following mandatory
requirements for seeking benefit of Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the
Rent Act :-
(a) The tenant pays or tenders in court within ninety days
from the service of the summons the arrears of standard rent
and permitted increases then due,
(b) also pays simultaneously simple interest at 15% p.a.
on the amount of arrears and
(c) thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court
regularly such standard rent or permitted increases during the
pendency of the suit until the suit is finally decided and
(d) also pays the costs of the suit as directed by the Court.
7. Although Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 contemplates that within
a period of ninety days from the date of service of the summons of the
suit, the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted
increases then due together with simple interest on the amount of
arrears at fifteen per cent per annum, however as the order of the Trial
Court is required to be passed on such application filed under Sub-
Section (3) of Section 15 of the Rent Act, filing application within 90
days can be treated as sufficient compliance of said provision.
8. Admittedly, the Application as provided under Sub-Section (3) of
Section 15 was filed on 10th March 2008. Perusal of the record shows
that the suit summons was served on the Applicant-Defendant on 4th
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
August 2007. On 4th November 2007 the 90 days period as
contemplated under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act expired. Admittedly,
the application as contemplated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of
the Rent Act was filed by the Applicant-Tenant on 10th March 2008 i.e.
after about 210 days from the date of service of summons of the suit on
the Defendant. Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Rent Act gives
another opportunity to the tenant who has committed default in
payment of rent to avoid suffering eviction decree. As by Sub-Section
(3) of Section 15, an additional opportunity is given to the tenant who
has committed default in payment of rent to file an application within
90 days from the date of service of suit summons and to comply with
the requirements of Sub-Section (3) of Section 15, filing application
within 90 days as contemplated by Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 is
mandatory.
9. Mr. Deo, learned Counsel, fairly submits that there is no provision
which allows the Court to condone delay in the said 90 days period.
Both the Courts have concurrently held that the ground of default in
payment of rent is established and the Petitioner has failed to file
application within said 90 days period.
10. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference. The Civil
Revision Application is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
11. At this stage, Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the Applicants, seeks
908-CRA-562-2025.doc
stay of eight weeks. However, Ms. Bharti Kiran Joshi (the Power of
Attorney Holder of the Applicants and who has verified the Civil
Revision Application), who is personally present in Court, fairly admits
that the Applicants are not using the suit premises. Ms. Qureshi, learned
Counsel for the Respondents, states that the Applicants are not using
the suit premises for last about six years. Accordingly, no case is made
out for grant of stay of eight weeks.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
