The eviction of a tenant from a property in Mumbai due to alleged rent arrears. The tenant disputes the rulings of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench, arguing that rent was regularly paid, while the landlord contends significant defaults occurred. Central to the dispute is whether the tenant's rent deposits, including time-barred arrears, satisfy the requirements under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Key judgments such as Khadi Gram Udyog Trust and Sriniwas Babulal interpret the legal provisions related to rent payment. The High Court remanded the case back to the Small Causes Court for a fresh determination of whether the tenant's rent payments meet legal requirements to avoid eviction.

1. Introduction

   • Issue: Satisfaction of Section 15(3) conditions to avoid eviction.
   • Debate: Whether only rent sought in the suit or also time-barred rent needs to be deposited.

2. Facts of the Case

   • Description of the premises: Flat No.18, Mayfair Building, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai.
   • Plaintiff claims arrears since April 1974.
   • Demand notice dated 12 August 2002.

3. Court Proceedings

   • Defendant's response to summons and notice for arrears deposit.
   • Small Causes Court's order on 21 March 2005 permitting deposit of Rs.41,289.70/-.
   • Compliance with court orders on rent deposits.

4. Evidence and Witnesses

   • Plaintiff's witnesses: Officers from BEST, Municipal Office, and others.
   • Defendant examined the original Defendant.

5. Appeal and Further Proceedings

   • Appeal No. 03 of 2013 by the Defendant.
   • Various applications and orders during the appeal.
   • Appellate Bench's judgment on 24 April 2023 dismissing the appeal.

6. Arguments by Revision Applicant's Counsel (Mr. Naik)

   • Claim: Rent was paid regularly as per legal requirements.
   • Issues with the demand notice and historical rent disputes.
   • Reference to legal precedents and interpretations.

7. Arguments by Plaintiff's Counsel (Mr. Godbole)

   • Support for Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench orders.
   • Emphasis on difference between 'rent recoverable' and 'rent due'.
   • Reference to legal provisions and judgments supporting the Plaintiff.

8. Consideration of Rival Contentions

   • Plaintiff’s grounds for ejectment.
   • Analysis of Defendant’s compliance with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

9. Court's Findings

   • Legal requirement of depositing entire arrears.
   • Examination of evidence and arguments from both parties.

10. Conclusion

    • Court’s decision on interference with the findings of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench based on the presented arguments and evidence.

Alternative Document Structure

1. Introduction

   • Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
   • Challenge to the judgment dated 24 April 2023 by the Appellate Bench.

2. Key Judgments and Interpretations

   • Khadi Gram Udyog Trust
     • 'Entire amount of rent due' includes time-barred rent.
   • Sriniwas Babulal Case
     • Time-barred arrears must be paid for protection under Section 15.

3. Further Interpretations and Case Laws

   • Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar
     • "Then due" includes time-barred arrears.
   • Other Relevant Judgments
     • Emphasis on strict compliance with rent payment provisions.

4. Issues with the Lower Courts' Decisions

   • Failure to address full amount due, including time-barred arrears.
   • Recorded arguments but incomplete judgments.

5. Conclusion

   • Need for Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench to decide on the tenant's deposit sufficiency under Section 15(3).

Final Summary

1. Introduction

   • Interpretation of "regularly" in Section 15(3) regarding rent payment.
   • Involvement of Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench.

2. Judgment Analysis by Courts

   • Small Causes Court Findings:
     • No decision on "regular" payment.
     • Failure to pay rent from 1978-1990 and during the suit.
   • Appellate Bench Findings:
     • Defendant deposited rent irregularly.

3. Applicant-Tenant's Argument

   • Statement of Deposits:
     • Almost regular deposits from 2005-2023, with minor delays explained.
     • Judgments supporting reasonable punctuality.

4. Key Judgments Cited

   • Mranalini Shah Case: Reasonable punctuality is sufficient.
   • Mohan Laxman Hede Case: Minor delays do not negate regularity.
   • Vasant Mahadeo Gujar Case: Readiness and willingness to pay are crucial.

5. High Court's Interpretation

   • Reasonable Punctuality: Not mathematical precision required.
   • Remand for Fresh Decision:
     • Reconsider tenant's compliance and rent arrears liability.
     • Decision without previous judgments' influence.

6. Court Order

   • Judgments of Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench set aside.
   • Case restored to Small Causes Court for fresh decision.
   • Continued rent deposit during suit pendency.

7. Conclusion

   • Remand for new determination, guidance on maintaining reasonable punctuality in rent payments.