Shri Chhagan Shamji Dead Gangaben Chhagan Patel Deceased And Other v. Kuvarben Chabildas Patel Since Deceased And ORS.

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 363 OF 2025 Chhagan Shamji Dead Gangaben Chhagan Patel Deceased and Ors ..Applicants

Versus

Kuvarben Chabildas Patel Since Deceased and Ors

...Respondents

Mr. Sean Wassoodew, with Rupesh Mandhare and Ashna Shah, for the Applicants.

Mr. Ramdas Hake, with Atharv Nalawade & Jayraj Kakade, for the Respondents.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED :

7th AUGUST 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This Revision Application is directed against a judgment and order dated 24th March 2025, passed by the Appellate Bench of the ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, in (A1) Appeal No.. 37 of 2018, ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.08.08 19:33:53 +0530 whereby the Appeal preferred by the Applicants-Claimants against a decree of eviction passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes on 12th December 2018 in RAE & R Suit No. 295 of 1994, came to be dismissed affirming the said decree passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes.

1/3

3.

The learned Judge and the Appellate Bench have recorded concurrent findings of the facts that, the Applicants-Claimants had committed default in payment of rent and thereby incurred forfeiture of tenancy and also carried out permanent additions and alternations in the Suit premises without permission of the landlord. 4.

On the perusal of the material on record it becomes evidently clear that the Defendants could not demonstrate that the Defendants have tendered the arrears of rent within 30 days of the service of the statutory notice. Moreover, what inexorably impairs the case of the Defendants is that there was complete non-compliance of the conditions which were required to be fulfilled to avail the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947.

5.

Suffice to note, after institution of the Suit, the Defendants sought permission to deposit the rent for a period of 301 months, for the first time, on 26th September 2017. The issues were settled on 20th July 2006.

6.

Thus, the Courts below were wholly justified in drawing an inference that the Defendants-Claimants was not ready and willing to pay the rent and had incurred forfeiture of tenancy on account of noncompliance of the conditions stipulated in Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act 1947. The findings of the Courts below on the ground of 2/3

permanent alternation and additions in the Suit premises without the permission of the landlord is also borne out by the material on record. 7.

Thus, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, no interference is warranted with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.

8.

The Revision Application stands dismissed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3