“Preservation of Tenancy Integrity: A Dispute of Subletting and Default in Rent Payment” "Exploring indivisible tenancy and the principles of partial eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999."

Case Note & Summary

1. Nature of the Dispute

The case revolves around the premises in Supariwala Mansion, where tenants Genarosa and Ricardia Annes were in possession of various portions. The landlord sought eviction citing default in rent payment and alleged subletting.

2. Case History and Background

Maria Paulin Annes, mother of Genarosa and Ricardia, acquired tenancy rights in 1952. The premises later became the subject of disputes over subletting and default in rent.

3. Litigations and Decrees

The premises witnessed multiple litigations, including suits filed by third parties like Ashok Anand and disputes between Genarosa and Ricardia. Consent terms in earlier cases created ambiguities about tenancy divisions.

4. Key Legal Provisions Invoked Section 115, CPC, 1908: Revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. Sections 15 and 16, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act): Grounds of eviction including default in rent and subletting. 5. Issues for Consideration Validity of partial eviction suits. Existence of singular, indivisible tenancy. Demand notice compliance under the MRC Act. 6. Arguments Presented

By the Tenants:

Invalid notice due to partial description of premises. Existence of a joint tenancy indivisible under law. Inadequate demand notice failing to reflect true arrears.

By the Landlord:

Surrender of portions by tenants validated partial eviction. Notice served was in accordance with law. Tenants defaulted in rent payment despite notices. Acts and Sections Discussed: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115: Scope of revision jurisdiction. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Section 15(2): Grounds for eviction based on rent defaults. Section 16: Prohibition on unlawful subletting or modifications. Legal Ratio and Principles:

Indivisibility of Tenancy:The court emphasized the principle that singular tenancies cannot be split without statutory authorization, as established in S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand (AIR 1968 SC 438).

Validity of Demand Notices:Notices demanding rent must encompass all tenanted portions; partial eviction notices breach the integrity of tenancy rights (Chimanlal v. Mishrilal, AIR 1985 SC 136).

Subjects:

Rent control, tenancy disputes, eviction law.Maharashtra Rent Control Act, tenancy integrity, partial eviction, rent default, subletting disputes.