The Bombay High Court dismissed a revision application challenging eviction decrees under Section 115 of the CPC. It upheld findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts based on rent defaults, unlawful subletting, and bonafide requirement of the landlord under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Court also addressed the maintainability of eviction suits for premises on government land.

The Court rejected tenants' jurisdictional challenges, emphasizing their failure to establish premises as unauthorised under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The grounds for eviction included persistent rent defaults, unlawful subletting, and bonafide need for family business. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed for misuse of legal provisions.

1. Case Introduction (Para 1)

The revision application under Section 115 of CPC challenges eviction decrees passed by the Small Causes Court (2014) and confirmed by the Appellate Bench (2023).

2. Property and Tenancy Details (Para 2)

• Suit premises: Plot No. 23, Kherwadi, Bandra (E), Mumbai.
• Tenants: Defendants 1-3 on a rent of Rs. 250/month.
• Allegations: Rent arrears, unauthorised constructions, subletting, and misuse of property for commercial purposes.

3. Litigation Timeline and Eviction Grounds (Para 3)

• Eviction suit filed in 2006 on multiple grounds.
• Trial Court upheld unlawful subletting, rent default, and bonafide need while rejecting claims under Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.
• Appellate Bench confirmed findings in 2023.

4. Jurisdiction Challenge by Defendants (Paras 4–10)

• Defendants argued that tenancy was outside the purview of the MRC Act, citing government ownership of the land.
• Court held that tenants' inconsistent arguments aimed to prolong litigation.
• Section 3(3) MRC Act: Landlord’s lease permitted tenancy creation, making the Act applicable.

5. Rent Default and Compliance (Paras 15–17)

• Demand notice issued in 2005; tenants failed to clear arrears within the statutory period.
• Court emphasized strict compliance with Section 15(3) of the MRC Act requiring deposit of arrears, interest, and costs.

6. Unlawful Subletting Findings (Paras 18–20)

• Subletting to Chandrakala Golapalli, disguised as a partnership, was deemed unlawful.
• Evidence of bogus partnership agreement and lack of supporting business documents was critical.

7. Bonafide Requirement of the Plaintiff (Paras 21–22)

• Landlord demonstrated genuine need for premises to establish a family business.
• Evidence of alternative premises held by tenants further strengthened the landlord’s claim.

8. Costs and Time for Eviction (Paras 23–24)

• Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on tenants for delaying litigation.
• Tenants allowed time until February 2025 to vacate, with conditions.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 115 (Revision)
2. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Sections 3, 15 (Rent default, jurisdiction, exemptions)
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 116 (Estoppel against tenants)
4. Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 108(o) (Prohibition of unauthorised construction)

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Jurisdictional Misuse: Tenants cannot claim protection under rent control laws while simultaneously questioning the landlord's title to defeat eviction suits.
2. Rent Default Consequences: Tenants' failure to meet statutory conditions under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act warrants eviction.
3. Subletting Evidence: Courts may infer subletting from circumstantial evidence and lack of credible defense, such as a bogus partnership.
4. Bonafide Need: Courts give precedence to landlords' genuine requirements for premises over tenants' misuse of alternative property.

Subjects:

Landlord-Tenant Dispute; Eviction under Rent Control Laws
Rent Default, Unlawful Subletting, Jurisdiction, Bonafide Requirement, Maharashtra Rent Control Act