Bombay High Court
KANTA SHANTILAL SISODIAversusM/S. JAI AMBE DEVELOPERS THR ITS PARTNER MR.RAVI K BHARAPURIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that the notice was valid, the tenants' defaults were substantial, and therefore the eviction orders under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act stand.
Summary
The applicants, family members and tenants of three ground‑floor rooms in Gaurishankar Chawl, challenged a Small Causes Court decree ordering their eviction for non‑payment of rent and for alleged permanent alterations. The landlord had served a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging arrears of Rs. 280.50 per month, and obtained a decree after the tenants repeatedly defaulted on rent deposits despite court‑ordered payment schedules. The tenants argued that the notice was defective because the rent was actually Rs. 28.50 per month and that delayed deposits should be condoned under Section 15(3) and prior case law. The High Court examined the validity of the notice, the extent of the defaults, and the applicability of precedents on rent deposit regularity, concluding that the notice was proper and the defaults were substantial. Consequently, the Court dismissed all three civil revision applications and upheld the eviction orders, granting only a temporary stay to allow the tenants to approach the Supreme Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the notice dated 16 February 2009 issued under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was legally valid despite the tenants' claim of a lower rent amount.
- Whether the tenants' delayed deposit of rent can be condoned to preserve protection under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act.
- Whether the magnitude and frequency of rent defaults justify eviction despite precedents on reasonable punctuality.
- Whether the appellate court's finding on permanent alterations should be revisited in light of the rent default issue.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act — s. 12(2)
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 15(3)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s. 106
Subjects
- eviction
- non‑payment of rent
- rent control
- permanent alterations
- civil revision
- standard rent
- notice defect
- delay condonation
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2026
SHANTILAL P. SISODIA ...APPLICANT
Versus
M/S. JAI AMBE DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. RAVI K.
BHARAPURIA ...RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2026
Mr. Parag Tilak a/w Mr. Gandhar Raikar, Ms. Iyanah Parbhoo
& Ms. Ria Pai i/b Meraki Chambers , learned counsels for the
Applicants.
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Anil L. Gala & Mr.
Kaivalya Raut i/b Mr. Neel Gala, learned counsels for the
Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
Per Court :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Page 1 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
2. In all the three Civil Revision Applications, the subject
matter is connected, as the Applicants are the members of one family
and the Respondent is same. Hence, at the request of learned
counsel for the parties, all the three matters are taken up together for
disposal.
3. By the present Civil Revision Applications, the Applicants
are family members and tenants of the suit premises i.e. adjacent
three rooms on the Ground Floor of Gaurishankar Chawl, Tara
Chawl, Irla Gavthan, Vile Parle-West, Mumbai-400 056, have
challenged the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 2026 passed
in Appeal No. 96 of 2024 and Cross Objection No. 11 passed by the
Division Bench of learned Small Causes Court (Bandra Division),
whereby the Appellate Bench has upheld the judgment dated 20 th
July, 2024 of learned Small Causes Court, directing eviction of the
Applicants on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section
15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the Rent Act”).
The Appellate Bench has also allowed the Cross Objection and set
aside the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court on the ground
of permanent alterations and additions to the suit premises and
directed eviction of the Applicants on the said ground also.
4. The facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision
Applications, in brief, are that the original Plaintiff/Responent Firm
herein, is the owner of the suit property along with the structures
standing thereon i.e. Tara Gaurishankar Chawl, Irla Goathan, Irla
Page 2 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
Passage Road, Vile Parle-West, Mumbai-400 056 bearing CTS Nos.
741 and 741/1 to 9 and the Applicants herein/original Defendants
are the monthly tenants in respect of the suit premises, i.e. the rooms
on the Ground Floor in respect of the suit property at the monthly
rent of Rs. 280.50 inclusive of all taxes and permitted increases.
5. It is the case of Plaintif/Respondent-Firm that the
Defendants/Applicants had not paid rent from June 2006 to March
2009 @ of Rs. 280.50 per month. Therefore, the Plaintiff-Firm had
issued notice dated 16th February, 2009 under Section 15 of the Rent
Act. The Defendants failed to pay the arrears of rent in terms of the
notice, as such the Plaintiff-Firm was constrained to file a suit for
eviction. The suit of eviction was filed for non-payment of rent, so
also the additions and alterations in the suit premises and other
ground of creating nuisance in the suit property.
6. On receipt of the summons on 16 th September, 2009, the
Defendants filed an application for deposit of rent along with fixation
of standard rent on 24th November, 2009. Learned Trial Court has
fixed the standard rent at Rs. 280.50 per month by passing an order
dated 30th September, 2010 directing the Defendants to deposit the
rent and accordingly, the Defendants had deposited the outstanding
rent on 25th October, 2010.
7. During pendency of the proceedings before learned Trial
Court, the Defendants failed to deposit the rent on two occasions for
Page 3 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
the period from 1st January, 2010 to 30th September, 2012 (for 33
months) and from 1st October, 2012 to 30th September, 2013 (for 12
months).
8. The application for deposit of outstanding rentals as per
standard rent was allowed on 30 th September, 2010. The Applicants
had deposited the rent for 48 months from 1st January, 2006 to 31st
December, 2009 in terms of the order passed in the application at
Exhibit-59. However, the Applicants failed to deposit rentals from 1 st
January, 2010 onwards. Thereafter the Applicants again filed an
application at Exhibit-26 after 33 months on 30th September, 2012
for deposit of rentals. The said application was allowed subject to
the right that has accrued in favour of the Plaintiff-Firm to seek
eviction of the Applicants under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act.
9. Thereafter, once again there was a default in payment of
rent from 1st October, 2012 to 30th September, 2013 for 12 months.
However, the application at Exhibit-32 for deposit of rent was made
by the Applicants in March 2013, i.e. after a default period of 6
months, which was allowed on 21st September, 2013. The said order
was passed after condoning the delay.
10. On considering the material on record, learned Trial Court
directed the eviction of Applicants under Section 15(3) of the Rent
Act and dismissed the suit on the grounds of permanent alterations
and creating nuisance in the suit premises.
Page 4 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
11. The Applicants had filed an Appeal before the Appellate
Court challenging the judgment and decree passed against them. So
also the Cross Objections were filed by the Respondent challenging
the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of permanent alterations and
creating nuisance in the suit premises. The Appellate Court
confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court on the
ground of non-payment of rentals under Section 15(3) of the Rent
Act. The Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree on
the grounds of permanent alterations in the suit premises and
directed eviction of the Applicants from the suit premises. However,
learned Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal by the landlord on the
ground of nuisance. Challenging the order passed by the Appellate
Court, the present Civil Revision Applications are filed by the
Tenants-Applicants.
12. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the demand
notice dated 16th February, 2009 issued by the Respondent-Landlords
itself is misconceived, as the rent for the suit premises was Rs. 28.50
per month and that the Applicants had paid rentals at the rate of Rs.
30/- per month through money orders, which were refused by the
landlord and as such, no Suit for eviction could have been filed by
the Respondent under Section 15(2) of the Rent Act, as there was no
due amount payable to the landlord.
13. Learned counsel for the Applicants particularly relied upon
the judgment of this Court in the cases of Vinayak Narayan
Page 5 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
Deshpande and Others v/s. Deelip Prahlad Shisode 1, wherein at
paragraphs 13 to 15, this Court has observed as follows :-
“13. At first blush the submission of Mr. Haridas, regarding non-
payment of rent appears to be attractive. However, on a careful
reading of section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, in
my opinion, his arguments are not tenable. Section 15 provides
that where a landlord is seeking the tenant's eviction fron any
premises, he may not do so on the ground of non-payment of
rent so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the
amount of standard rent and permitted increases in rent and
performs other conditions of tenancy in consonance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The landlord
gets a right to institute a suit for recovery of possession from the
tenant on the ground of non-payment of standard rent or
permitted increases, when after serving a notice upon the tenant
in the manner prescribed under section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, the tenant fails to pay the rent for 90 days
after receiving the notice of demand. This notice must clearly, as
laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as
this Court, specify that the notice has been issued on the ground
of non-payment of rent or arrears of rent. The demand for
arrears cannot be inflated or be untenable as then the notice
itself would be bad as held in the case of Ganpat vs. Motilal
Champalal Lunawat and anr. A learned Single Judge of this
Court was considering the provisions of section 12(2) of the
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act.
The provisions of section 12 are pari materia with the provisions
of section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
14. It is only when the demand notice is issued in accordance
with law that a suit can be instituted and a decree can follow if
the landlord establishes that the tenant is in arrears of rent.
1
2010(3) Mh.L.J. 807.
Page 6 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
However, the tenant can avoid a decree on this ground if after
institution of the suit and within 90 days of the receipt of the
summons of the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the
standard rent and permitted increases with simple interest on
the arrears @ 15% p.a. and, thereafter, continues to pay or
tender in Court regularly such standard rent and permitted
increases. Therefore, unless the demand notice itself is legal, the
question of the tenant depositing the arrears or tendering the
arrears and continuing to pay the arrears in Court would not
arise. However, if the tenant chooses not to pay the arrears, as
required under section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, the landlord cannot be denied a decree for ejectment on the
ground of default in payment of rent, if he proves that the
tenant is in arrears of rent.
15. In the present case, the trial Court has considered the
evidence on record and held that the landlords had not
established the fact that they were entitled to recover the rent
from August, 1999 i.e. even prior to the purchase of the
property by them. The trial Court has considered the coupons of
the money order which were produced on record at Exhibit "48",
"48-A to 68-A" and "68" and found that the rent was paid to the
erstwhile landlord. The trial Court has also held that the
plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had the right to claim the
rent prior to March, 2000.”
14. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that when the
demand notice itself is inflated or untenable, then such a notice itself
would be bad and no suit could be filed on the basis of such notice.
Learned counsel submits that suit itself is misconceived and ought to
have been dismissed on the ground of payment of rentals.
Page 7 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
15. Learned counsel for the Applicants also relied upon the
judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa in the case of Ms. Kusum
Pandari Naik and Another v/s. Mrs. Kamal Soman Naik Raikar @
Shobhavati N. Parpati (since deceased) through legal heirs 2, wherein
this Court has permitted deposit of rent even after a period of 7 years
as sufficient cause was shown. Learned counsel submits that there
was sufficient cause in making belated payment.
16. Learned counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Abhay Dushyant Desai v/s. K.
C. Chheda & Co.3, to contend that the word ‘regularly’ used in sub-
section (3) of Section 15 cannot be interpreted to mean that the
legislature has intended mathematical punctuality in the matter of
deposit of rent on a particular date for extending the benefit of
protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Rent Act. So
long as the Court is satisfied that the tenant showed reasonable
punctuality in the matter of deposit of rent, protection under Section
15(3) of the Rent Act, will have to be necessarily extended to the
tenant.
17. Learned counsel further submits that where the delay has
been condoned in depositing the rent, the default under Section
15(3) of the Rent Act stood condoned.
2
Writ Petition No. 286 of 2023 decided on 14th June, 2023.
3
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1934.
Page 8 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
18. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the Respondent
points out that in the reply to the notice dated 16 th February, 2009,
the Applicants have specifically accepted that the monthly rent is of
Rs. 285/- (This fact is clarified by the Applicants that there is a
typing error in the interim application at page no. 313, paragraph
7.).
19. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent has also taken
me through paragraph 3 of the application for deposit of arrears,
wherein the Applicants have stated that they be permitted to deposit
the arrears of rental at the increased rate of Rs. 280.50 per month in
the Court from the period 1st January, 2006 till 30th December, 2009
along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum and
to deposit the cost of suit as may be directed.
20. Prayer clause (d) of the Civil Revision Applications also
indicate that the Applicants prayed to deposit from 1 st January, 2010
monthly recurring rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- as per the interim
standard rent that may be fixed by the Court.
21. Learned senior counsel has taken me through the order
dated 30th September, 2010 passed in Exhibit-15, wherein the
learned Trial Court fixed the rental at Rs. 280/- per month from June
2006 to March 2009. Learned senior counsel further submits that
the Court has also held that since the Defendants themselves have
shown readiness to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs. 280.50 per
Page 9 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
month, the interim standard rent along with permitted increase of
the suit premises is also fixed @ Rs. 280.50 per month. The order
was passed on 30th September, 2010 directing the Applicants to
deposit the rent @ Rs. 280.50 per month from 1 st January, 2006 to
31st December, 2009 along with interest @ 15% per annum and
thereafter monthly rental to be paid @ Rs. 280.50.
22. Since the standard rent as well as the rent paid by the
Defendants/Tenants/Applicants is Rs. 280.50 per month and there is
no finding that the rent payable by the Defendants is Rs. 30/- per
month, the first submission of the Applicants that the notice is
defective and the suit based on notice is misconceived, cannot be
accepted.
23. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Applicants has
made an attempt to point out the deposition of parties. He pointed
out the cross-examinations of the Plaintiff and Defendants to indicate
that the rent payable should have been @ Rs. 28.50 per month,
however in the Civil Revision Applications, re-examination of the
evidence to ascertain standard rent, being factual in nature cannot be
entertained. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the rent
payable is @ Rs. 280.50 per month. In absence of any finding that
the rent payable is Rs. 30/- per month and that the notice dated 16 th
February, 2009 being for an exaggerated amount, the submission of
learned counsel for the Applicants that the notice is defective cannot
be accepted.
Page 10 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
24. In the case of Vinayak Narayan Deshpande and Others
(supra) relied upon by the Applicants, the rent was already deposited
to the earlier landlord and therefore, it would cover a different
aspect altogether.
25. Even if it is the case of Applicants that the arrears are
inflated, it is available for the tenant to apply for the standard rent
and the standard rent itself is fixed @ Rs. 280/- per month.
26. Coming to the defaults and particularly that a reasonable
cause is made out for delayed payment. Even after the order is
passed on 30th September, 2010 for the payment of said rent, the
amount is only paid for the period from 1 st January, 2006 to 31st
December, 2009. The next application is filed after 24 months of the
order dated 30th September, 2010 and the default already was of 33
months. Such an application was allowed subject to the right of the
original Plaintiff to seek eviction.
27. The next default is of 12 months, but the application is
made within 6 months on 14 th March, 2013. Even this default is
substantial though an application is made after 6 months and
allowed after another 6 months, the default is of 12 months. This
Court cannot apply the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhay
Dushyant Desai (supra) in favour of the Applicants in the present
instance as the defaults are very large.
Page 11 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
28. In the case of Abhay Dushyant Desai (supra), the fact
situation is different and the defaults are of minor nature,
particularly at paragraph 32, the chart of default is noted as under :-
“32. Thus, Appellate Bench has recorded a finding on perusal of
record and receipts issued by the Court that the Defendant was
depositing the rent, but he was not regularly depositing the rent
in the Court. By recording this finding, the Appellate Bench
appears to have denied the benefit of Section 15(3) of the Act to
the Applicant-tenant. Mr. Naik has taken me through the
statement placed on record at Exhibit-N to the petition showing
deposits made in the Court from time to time during pendency
of the suit. After going through the said statement, it appears
that during the long period between 2005 to 2023, when suit
and Appeal remained pending, Applicant-Tenant was almost
regular in depositing the amount of rent. There have been only
five occasions during the long period of 18 years, where there
was some delay on the part of the Applicant-tenant in depositing
the rent.
The said five occasions are as under :
Sr. Date Delay
No.
i. 19.03.2008 2 months 23 days
ii. 02.02.2011 22 days
iii. 05.03.2012 1 month 25 days
iv. 04.08.2016 26 days
Page 12 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
v. 04.12.2020 5 months Covid-19 SOP
29. The highest default is of 5 months during the Covid-19 SOP
period. Leaving aside the Covid-19 SOP period, the default was, over
4 occasions highest of 2 months and this was over a period from the
year 2005 to 2023 i.e. nearly for about 17 years. In the instant case,
the default is substantial and would fall faul of sub-section 3 of
Section 15 of the Rent Act.
30. There is a concurrent judgment against the Applicants as
regards the non-payment of rent is concerned. This Court has found
no error in the judgment of the Courts below. In view of the same,
no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders directing
eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent.
31. I am not examining the next aspect of the Appellate Court’s
judgment relating to alterations made in the suit property, since the
Applicants failed to make good their first submission as regards the
default in payment of rent.
32. In view of the above, all the three Civil Revision
Applications are dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
Page 13 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Gitalaxmi 23,24&49-CRA-292-2026+.docx
33. Learned counsel for the Applicants seeks stay to the eviction
for a period of 3 months and submits that he would file an
undertaking within 3 weeks and deposit entire outstanding
compensation before the learned Small Causes Court from February
2026 till date.
34. Subject to unusal undertaking, the execution of application
is stayed for a period of 12 weeks and the Applicants are also granted
12 weeks’ time to deposit the outstanding amount and also to pay
rentals month to month for next 12 weeks.
35. The stay is granted to enable the Applicants to approach the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the Applicants fail to file an undertaking
before this Court within 3 weeks, the stay granted today would stand
automatically vacated.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.09.11
19:31:09 +0530
Page 14 of 14
st
31 AUGUST, 2026
Checking your session…