The Bombay High Court has set aside the eviction decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 375/543 of 2003 on the ground of arrears of rent. The Court found that the defendants had complied with the statutory requirements under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (MRC Act) by depositing the arrears of rent, interest, and costs within the permissible period. The Court also determined that procedural errors by the lower courts, including the misinterpretation of the filing date of a crucial application, led to a wrongful decree for eviction. The Appellate Bench judgment dated 5 May 2022 was also set aside.

1. Eviction Decree by the Small Causes Court:

   • The Court of Small Causes at Bombay decreed eviction of the defendants on the ground of arrears of rent while rejecting the grounds of illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structures, and bona fide requirement.

2. Appeal and Dismissal:

   • The defendants appealed against the eviction decree in Appeal No. 222 of 2016 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, which dismissed the appeal on 5 May 2022.

3. Challenge in Revision Application:

   • The defendants invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging both the judgments.

4. Compliance with Section 15(3) of the MRC Act:

   • The defendants' counsel argued that the entire arrears of rent, costs, and interest were deposited within 90 days as mandated by Section 15(3) of the MRC Act. However, the lower courts erroneously considered the filing date as 10 October 2005, instead of the actual date of 3 May 2005.

5. Delay in Court’s Decision and Deposit Date:

   • The Court acknowledged a delay in the lower court’s decision on the application filed by the defendants for permission to deposit the arrears, which led to a one-day delay in the actual deposit on 16 November 2005, rather than the prescribed date of 15 November 2005.

6. Application of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904:

   • The High Court applied Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904, to consider the deposit made on 16 November 2005 (due to a court holiday on 15 November 2005) as valid.

7. Setting Aside the Eviction Decree:

   • The High Court found that the defendants had met the requirements under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act. The findings of the lower courts were deemed perverse, and the eviction decree was set aside.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - Revisionary Jurisdiction of the High Court.
• Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 15 - Conditions under which a landlord is entitled to recovery of possession due to non-payment of rent.
• Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904, Section 11 - Computation of time when an act is required to be done within a prescribed period.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court held that the defendants had complied with the statutory requirement of depositing the arrears within 90 days as stipulated under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act. The procedural delay on the part of the Court should not prejudice the defendants. Furthermore, the provision under Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904, supported the defendants' case that the deposit made on the day following a court holiday is valid. Thus, the eviction decree was unjustified and was set aside.