In a long-running eviction dispute, the Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the Small Causes Court to return an 800 sq ft flat in Dadar to the landlord, the late Dilipkumar Purandare. The rent for the spacious flat was INR 396.75 monthly and the State did not pay rent arrears from 1 December 1989. The court ruled that while mathematical precision is not expected in regular rent payments, the State cannot avoid paying the monthly rent for years during the pendency of the eviction suit, as per the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Rejecting the State's and Mumbai Police Commissioner's appeals, the High Court directed them to hand over vacant possession of the flat by 30 November, ending the 20-year-old battle over the government-occupied premises.
The Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the Small Causes Court to return a flat in a prime location in Dadar to a landlord. The court acknowledged that while mathematical precision is not expected in regular rent payments, it does not mean that the State could have avoided paying it for months and years during the pendency of an eviction suit, under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Through this judgement, the High Court ended a 20-year-old eviction battle by directing the State and the Mumbai police commissioner, whose designation was mentioned on the rent receipts as the tenant, to hand over vacant possession of the 800 sq ft flat by the end of November.
The rent for the spacious flat in Dadar was INR 396.75 monthly. The government had rented the flat for decades as official accommodation for police officers. Presently, a police officer, not the police commissioner, occupied it. The courts rejected the landlord's, the late Dilipkumar Purandare's, claim of sub-letting, but the issue was the unpaid rent. The Small Causes Court in 2016 had accepted the landlord's plea of bona fide requirement of the flat for his expanding family and unpaid rent arrears. The landlord said that the State did not pay rent arrears from 1 December 1989.
The State went in appeal before the Small Causes appellate bench, which in 2023 accepted the State's contention that the landlord failed to prove 'bona fide requirement' but upheld the eviction order on unpaid rent arrears, prompting the State to challenge the decision before the High Court. The High Court held that the State was in rent arrears but "continued its negligent approach" and did not use the opportunity provided by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act to deposit the rent regularly in court when the landlord filed the eviction suit in 2004. The High Court rejected the State and police commissioner's plea, stating that "no error can be traced in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court." The High Court gave the State until 30 November to vacate the flat.
By upholding the lower courts' findings and ordering the swift handover of the flat, the High Court has reinforced the importance of timely rent payments and the need for the government to fulfil its responsibilities as a tenant. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring a fair and equitable resolution of landlord-tenant disputes, even when the stakes are high and the battle has been waged for decades.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
