Court Validates Eviction Despite Demand Notice Sent to Alternate Address: Bombay High Court Affirms Tenant's Eviction

Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Gorakh Rambhau Chothve & Anr. vs. Vilas Eknath Kadam & Anr., addressing the issue of eviction due to non-payment of rent. The court upheld the District Court's decision to evict the tenants for default in rent payment, reinforcing the importance of proper service of demand notices.

The case originated when the plaintiffs, who owned Municipal House No. 24 in Igatpuri, filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of a rented room and arrears of rent. The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit, rejecting the claims of arrears of rent and subletting. However, on appeal, the District Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the eviction of the tenants and payment of arrears. The defendants subsequently challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court.

The central issue revolved around the validity of the demand notice under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The defendants argued that the notice was not served at the suit premises but at an alternate address, rendering it invalid. The court, however, disagreed, noting that the landlord was entitled to serve the notice at an address where the tenant was likely to be found, especially if the tenant was not residing in the suit premises.

The court emphasized that "the only requirement is the service of notice" and that the landlord acted prudently by dispatching the notice to the address where the tenant was believed to be residing.

Service of Notice: The court validated the service of notice, accepting the postman's testimony that the defendants refused to accept the notice at the alternate address.

Applicability of Section 12(3)(a): The court held that the rent and education cess were agreed to be paid on a monthly basis, fulfilling the conditions of Section 12(3)(a). Since the defendants neglected to pay rent within a month after the notice, the court had no discretion but to decree the suit for eviction.

Rejection of Subletting Ground: While the ground of subletting was rejected, the court maintained the eviction solely on the ground of default in payment of rent.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decree of eviction against the tenants for default in payment of rent. The court granted the tenants three months to vacate the premises subject to filing an undertaking. This judgment underscores the court's stance on the validity of demand notices and the strict application of rent control laws in cases of default.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Gorakh Rambhau Chothve & Anr. vs. Vilas Eknath Kadam & Anr.