FEHAMEEDA BEGUM Vs. ABDUL HAFIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The only issue that arises for determination in this petition is whether a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, demanding a higher rent than the rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant is badinlaw or whether the notice would be valid and the tenant would be required to pay the arrears of admitted rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice and/or within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons.

(3.) The petitioner is the landlady. The petitioner had issued a notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 to the respondent seeking the arrears of rent for the period from 01/11/2002 till 31/10/2005 at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month. In spite of the service of the notice, the respondenttenant did not pay the rent. A suit was, therefore, instituted by the landlady against the tenant seeking recovery of possession under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial Court decreed the suit of the landlady and directed the respondent to hand over the possession under the provisions of Section 15 thereof. The trial Court rejected the claim of the landlady for possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondenttenant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. A cross appeal was filed by the landlady seeking possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appeal filed by the respondenttenant was allowed by the first appellate Court. It was held by the first appellate Court that the notice issued by the landlady under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 was badinlaw inasmuch as the landlady had sought the rent at the rate of rupees four hundred and fifty per month when the admitted rent between the parties was rupees two hundred per month only. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 22/03/2012 in the instant petition.