http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Tenant-not-paying-rent-liable-to-hand-over-property-HC/articleshow/18665719.cms

Tenant not paying rent liable to hand over property: HC

Vaibhav Ganjapure, TNN | Feb 25, 2013, 01.45AM IST

NAGPUR: Coming to rescue of a Bhaldarpura land lady who was allegedly harassed by her tenant not paying the rent arrears, Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled that the tenant was liable to hand over the property if he failed to deposit the admitted rent as per Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petition came up for hearing before the single-judge bench of Justice Vasanti Naik.

Petitioner Fehmeeda Begum issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act to Abdul Hafiz seeking the arrears of rent from November 1, 2002, to October 31, 2005. She demanded arrears at Rs 450 month, but Hafiz failed to respond. She then filed a civil suit in the trial court seeking arrears as well as possession of rented property. Though the court asked the tenant to pay the arrears, it rejected her claim for possession of property.

Hafiz then moved the first appellate court challenging this judgment and Fehmeeda filed a cross appeal. However, the appellate court ruled in tenant's favour on March 22 last year holding that notice issued by landlady as per Section 15 of the Act was bad in law as she had sought the arrears at Rs 450 per month when the agreed amount was Rs 200.

She then knocked high court doors contending that even the admitted rent was not paid by the tenant within 90 days from the receipt of notice as per Act or from date of receiving suit summons. She argued that the respondent had an option to even pay the arrears of admitted rent of Rs 200 per month but he failed to do so.

The respondent demanded dismissal of petition stating that notice under Section 15 was not issued according to law and the case seeking recovery of property's possession on the ground of non-payment of rent was not maintainable on the basis of such a notice. The issue before the court was to determine whether the notice under Section 15, demanding higher rent than agreed between both parties was bad in law or whether the notice would be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the rent arrears within 90 days from the receipt of the notice or the suit summons.

After hearing arguments from both sides and perusing different judgments of similar cases, Justice Naik observed that the appellate court was not justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the landlady.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1459144/