Bombay High Court
Jagdish S/O Vishwanath Gupta vs Bhagwaghar Family Trust, Thr. Trustee, ... on 8 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8882
1 WP1162.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1162/2021
Jagdish s/o Vishwanath Gupta Vs. Bhagwaghar Family Trust, Nagpur
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Mr.C.F.Bhagwani, Advocate for petitioner.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : ROHIT W.JOSHI, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2025.
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner-tenant has filed the present petition being aggrieved by
concurrent decrees for eviction passed against him. The respondent-landlord
is a Trust, which has filed a suit for eviction against the present petitioner
under Sections 15 and 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The said
suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.440/2007. The learned Trial Court
has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2018, in view of the
Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as
"Rent Act"). The respondent-defendant preferred an appeal challenging the
said decree for eviction in Regular Civil Suit No.201/2018, which is also
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2020.
3. As regards arrears of rent, the learned Advocate contends that an
attempt to pay rent was made by issuing cheques in favour of the respondent-
landlord, however, the cheques were not deposited for realization by the
respondent-landlord and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in
arrears of rent warranting a decree for eviction under Section 15 of the Rent
Act could not have been passed.
4. As regards the contention that the rent though deposited was not
accepted, perusal of the reply notice dated 9.9.2006 issued by the petitioner-
2 WP1162.21.odt
tenant does not indicate that any such contention was raised in the said reply
notice. There is no satisfactory evidence from the side of the petitioner to
establish the said contention. In that view of the matter, the contention
regarding the landlord was not accepting the rent willfully also needs to be
rejected.
5. Further contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the
notice under Section 15 of the Rent Act issued by the respondent-landlord is
not in accordance with Section 15 of the Rent Act in as much as the notice
does not provide for 90 days period for making payment of arrears of rent. He,
therefore, contends that the suit ought to have been dismissed.
6. Section 15(1) of the Rent Act provides that so long as the tenant pays,
or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of rent and observes other
conditions of the tenancy, a landlord will not be entitled for recovery of
possession of tenanted premises. Section 15(2) of the Rent Act provides that
in case the tenant is in arrears of rent, the suit for eviction shall not be
instituted against the tenant till expiration of 90 days after notice of demand of
rent is served by the landlord on the tenant. Thus, the suit for possession on
the ground of arrears of rent cannot be filed before a period of 90 days from
the date of service of demand notice. Section 15(3) of the Rent Act further
provides that in a suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant has not paid
the arrears of rent, the tenant can deposit the arrears of rent with the Court
within a period of 90 days from the date on which suit summons are served on
him. These arrears are required to be deposited along with simple interest @
15% per annum. The tenant is also under obligation to pay or to deposit in the
Court the amount of rent regularly. Thus, the tenant can avoid a decree for
eviction by clearing the arrears of rent along with interest within a period of 90
3 WP1162.21.odt
days from the date of service of summons and by continuing to make payment
of rent regularly. However, it is settled by catena of judgments that the time
frame prescribed for clearing the arrears of rent is mandatory and that period
for clearing the arrears cannot be extended beyond the period of 90 days as
provided under the provision.
7. The learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner-tenant
was in arrears of rent for more than three months and did not pay the
outstanding amount of rent initially in response to demand notice by
respondent/landlord even after receipt of summons he did not pay or deposit
the arrears of rent with the Court within a period of 90 days from the date of
service of suit summons. It will be pertinent to mention that the learned Trial
Court had passed order dated 22.08.2011 on application at Exhibit-30 directing
the petitioner-tenant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.82,800/- for a
period from the year 2005 to 2010 within a period of two months from the
date of said order on or before 22.10.2011. It is recorded that the said amount
was deposited on 11.11.2011. It is undisputed that this order dated
22.08.2011 is not challenged which implies that the petitioner-tenant accepted
that he was in arrears of rent from 2005 to 2010 and deposited the amount
accordingly.
8. As stated above, perusal of Section 15(2) of the Rent Act will
demonstrate that although a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of
standard rent or permitted increases cannot be filed against a tenant unless
period of 90 days has expired from the date on which a demand notice is
served on the tenant, the provision does not contemplate that the notice must
specify the period of 90 days for clearing the arrears of rent. All that the
provision contemplates is that suit for eviction cannot be filed before a period
4 WP1162.21.odt
of 90 days from the date on which demand notice is served on the tenant. The
demand notice is dated 16.8.2006. The petitioner has issued reply to the said
notice on 9.9.2006 which implies that the notice was served on or before
9.9.2006. The suit is filed on 14.12.2007 i.e. after a period of 90 days. It
cannot be said that the suit is filed in defiance of the mandate of Section 15
(2) of the Rent Act.
9. It is thus clear that there is clear non-compliance of provision of Section
15 of the Rent Act by the petitioner/tenant. The decree for eviction on this
ground is rightly passed by the learned Trial Court and is correctly confirmed
by the learned First Appellate Court.
10. Having regard to the reasons aforesaid, no case is made out for
interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Mukund Ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/09/2025 19:32:08
