In a recent judgement the Bombay High Court Bench led by Justice Sandeep V. Marne upheld an eviction order rooted in prolonged rent defaults. The revisionary jurisdiction of the Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was invoked for setting up a challenge to the judgment passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.

The original suit sought eviction based on two primary grounds: (1) the landlord’s bonafide requirement for the premises and (2) arrears of rent. The Trial Court, on 2nd March 2016, ruled in favour of the plaintiff, upholding both grounds. However, on 22nd November 2023, the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court partially overturned this finding, rejecting the bonafide requirement but maintaining the eviction decree for rent arrears.

Justice Marne, reviewing the judgement under Section 115 CPC, emphasised that revisionary jurisdiction serves to correct jurisdictional errors rather than reassess factual matrices. He concluded, "Considering the overall conspectus of the case, in my view, no error can be traced in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court."

Central to the court’s decision was the defendants’ failure to pay rent from 1st December 1989, notwithstanding multiple opportunities to rectify this default. After a demand notice was issued, the failure to respond led to the 2004 eviction suit. The CPC’s Order 15A allowed for a procedural remedy where defendants were directed to deposit arrears by 24th August 2005, which they failed to do within the stipulated time frame.

The defendants' non-compliance extended beyond the initial deposit. The court noted instances of further defaults in 2007 and 2013, underlining the defendants' breach of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, which mandates continuous deposit of rent during litigation. Justice Marne observed:

"Though mathematical precision is not expected in the matter of regular payment of rent, it does not mean that Defendant No.1 could have avoided payment of rent for months and years during pendency of the suit."

Given the sustained non-compliance, the court affirmed the eviction order. However, in a gesture acknowledging procedural fairness, Justice Marne granted the Revision Applicants time until 30th November 2024 to vacate the premises.

Case Details- The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Dilipkumar Prabhakar Purandare

Advocates for Applicants- Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP

Advocates for Respondents- Mr. Nursat Shah a/w. Ms. Ema Almeida, Mr.Kevin Gala, Mr. Sameer Shah and Mr. Archana Jha