LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH THR POAH NAZAKAT LIYAKAT ANSARIversusMUNIR AHMED NOOR MOHAMMED QURESHI

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.499 OF 2026


Laik Ahmed Shaikh              ....          Applicant
       Vs.
Munir Ahmed Noor Mohd. Qureshi ....          Respondents


Senior Advocate, Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar for Applicant.


                                 CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                 DATE   : 17th September 2026

P.C. :


1.       Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant.

2.       The Applicant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned

Trial Court and the Appellate Court, whereby a decree of eviction came to be

granted against the Applicant on the grounds of arrears of rent, subletting,

non-user, acquisition of alternate premises, and the bona fide requirement of

the Landlord. The decree of eviction passed by the trial Court has been

concurrently upheld by the Appellate Court on all the aforesaid grounds.

3.       The brief facts giving rise to the present Application are that the

Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit property known as Noor

Mohammed Meharali Building, situated at 39-A, Kurla Quresh Nagar, Kurla
                                      1/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                  Dusane
(East), Mumbai – 400 070, wherein Room no. 23 on the 2 nd floor is tenanted

to the Defendant at the rate of Rs.70/- per month for residential purpose.

4.     The Plaintiff-landlord issued a notice to the Defendant-tenant calling

upon him to pay the arrears of rent, as the Defendant had failed and

neglected to pay the rent regularly. An amount of Rs. 3,920/- was due and

payable towards arrears of rent from 1st January 2013.

5.     Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a notice dated 23rd December 2012 to

the Defendant-tenant in respect of the non-payment of rent. The said notice

was duly served upon the Defendant by pasting the same on the door of the

premises, after the postal packet containing the notice was returned with the

endorsement “left.” Despite service of the said notice, the Defendant failed

and neglected to comply with the same and did not make payment of the

arrears demanded therein.

6.     The Plaintiff was constrained to institute the present Suit in August

2017 as the Defendant had failed to pay rent from 1 st January 2013 till

August 2017, despite the Plaintiff's repeated demands.

7.     The Suit summons were duly served upon the Defendants. However,

despite service of the Suit summons, the Defendant failed to avail the

statutory opportunity contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra

Rent Control Act and did not make payment or deposit of the arrears of rent

                                     2/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                    Dusane
within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of service of the Suit

summons.

8.     Even thereafter, the Defendant failed to make any payment towards

the arrears of rent due and payable to the Plaintiff. Thus, despite service of

the statutory notice as well as the Suit summons, the Defendant has

continued to remain in default and has failed to clear the arrears of rent

payable to the Plaintiff.

9.     After considering the aforesaid material, both the learned Trial Court

and the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the Plaintiff failed to

pay the arrears of rent despite having been duly served with a valid notice

and continued to defer payment even after service of summons and beyond

the statutory period of 90 days. The Courts have further held that the

Plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to pay the standard rent and permitted

increases and, therefore, was not entitled to claim protection under Section

15 of the Act.

10.    In this regard, learned counsel for the Applicant has not disputed that

the arrears of rent were not deposited in Court within 90 days of service of

summons. However, the submission of learned counsel for the Applicant is

that the notice was issued in the year 2017 and the suit was also instituted in

                                     3/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                    Dusane
the year 2017, as such, according to the Applicant, the notice had become

stale and no suit could have been instituted on the basis of such notice.

11.     However, it was not disputed before the Courts that the rent had

neither been paid nor deposited. The findings recorded by both the Courts

below are that the rent was not even paid after service of summons. It is also

not disputed that, during the period from 2013 to 2017, there is no proof of

payment of rent by the Applicant to the Plaintiff.

12.     Considering this aspect of the matter, and the concurrent findings of

both the Courts below, the submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant

that the notice was stale cannot be accepted. There was no payment of rent

after service of the notice and until the filing of the suit. The Defendant also

failed to pay the arrears of rent pursuant to the notice and, thereafter, failed

to tender the amount in Court within 90 days of service of summons in the

suit.

13.     It is observed by the Courts that the Defendant has failed to deposit

the arrears of rent in the Court after his appearance in the suit and that he

failed to deposit the same during the pendency of the suit. Considering the

findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no case is made out for

interference with the finding of eviction on the ground of non-payment of

arrears of rent under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

                                      4/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                     Dusane
14.    I have already observed that the Applicant has failed to make out a

case on the ground of rent. The Plaintiff has also sought eviction of the

Defendant on the grounds of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) and non-user

under Section 16(1)(n) of the Rent Control Act.

15.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that both these grounds are

inconsistent with each other. I do not find any inconsistency between the two

grounds. Subletting and non-user may overlap in nature. Once the premises

are sublet, non-use of the premises for the purpose for which they were

originally let would be a natural consequence of such subletting.

16.    Admittedly, the findings of both the Courts below are that the

Applicant-Defendant had purchased a house in Navi Mumbai in the year

2008 and shifted there with his family, and that the possession of the suit

premises had been with a third person since the year 2013. It was, therefore,

for the Defendant to establish the nature of the transaction between the

Applicant and the said third person. In the absence of any evidence in this

regard, the Courts below correctly inferred that the suit premises had been

sublet and that there was non-user thereof.

17.    Similarly, findings have been recorded in respect of the bona fide

requirement under Section 16(1)(g). The suit premises consist of a small

                                     5/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                  Dusane
room admeasuring 10 x 12 feet, and the Applicant’s family comprises five

members who are in need of the said premises. The Defendants have failed

to establish their own requirements and have merely alleged that the Plaintiff

owns other premises, without producing any evidence in support of such

allegation.

18.    The Courts below have also held that the comparative hardship would

be suffered by the Plaintiff in the event that a decree for possession is not

passed.

19.    In view of this matter, no case is made out for interference with the

impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed.

20.    Learned Counsel, on instructions from the power of attorney holder of

the Applicant, who is present in Court, makes a statement that, in the event

four months' time is granted to vacate the suit premises, he would file the

necessary undertaking on the usual terms to vacate the premises. It is

submitted that the Petitioner would not create any third-party interest in the

suit property, and they would also pay all the outstanding rent.

21.    On such undertaking being filed in Court within two weeks and

payment of the outstanding rent within four weeks from today, the execution

of the decree is stayed for a period of four months from today. All

outstanding rental amounts/compensation amounts are to be paid within one

                                     6/7
903 CRA 499.26.doc                                                   Dusane
                      month and thereafter on a month-to-month basis until the Petitioner vacate

                      and hand over possession of the suit premises.


BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL                                                                  [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
DUSANE

Digitally signed by
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE
Date: 2026.09.24
13:18:21 +0530




                                                          7/7
                      903 CRA 499.26.doc                                               Dusane