1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a civil revision application challenging concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench decreeing eviction on the ground of default under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Court held that the tenant failed to avail the statutory benefit under Section 15(3) because the application for deposit of arrears was filed 210 days after service of summons, whereas the statute mandates filing within 90 days.
The Court reaffirmed that the 90-day period is mandatory and incapable of condonation, and that tenants who miss this window cannot seek protection from eviction. The revision was dismissed, and the Court also declined a request for stay since the tenant admittedly had not used the suit premises for six years.
2. Facts
The landlord issued a demand notice under Section 15(1) on 14 February 2007, which the tenant received on 22 February 2007 and replied to on 9 March 2007. After arrears remained unpaid, the landlord filed RAE&R Suit No. 258/528 of 2007 on 21 June 2007. Summons was served on the tenant on 4 August 2007.
Under Section 15(3), the tenant had 90 days from service of summons to deposit arrears with 15% interest and regularly thereafter. Instead, the tenant filed the required application under Exhibit-11 only on 10 March 2008, far beyond the statutory period.
The Trial Court decreed eviction on 25 October 2013; the Appellate Bench confirmed the decree on 4 November 2025. The legal representatives of the deceased tenant then filed the present revision application.
3. Issues
The High Court considered:
• Whether the tenant complied with the mandatory 90-day requirement under Section 15(3) for avoiding eviction on the ground of arrears;
• Whether courts have power to condone delay in filing an application under Section 15(3);
• Whether concurrent factual findings on default warranted revisional interference;
• Whether the tenant deserved any equitable relief, including stay of decree.
4. Applicants’ arguments
The applicants argued that the Trial Court ought to have exercised discretion while considering late filing of the deposit application, asserting that the purpose of Section 15 is to protect tenants who show readiness and willingness. They contended that once an application is made, courts should adopt a liberal approach instead of imposing strict timelines.
Counsel also submitted that the delay was not deliberate and that eviction would impose disproportionate hardship. They sought stay of execution to prevent irreparable loss and argued that the courts should have considered subsequent conduct rather than focusing rigidly on the 90-day period.
5. Respondents’ arguments
The landlord argued that Section 15(3) creates a mandatory statutory condition: unless the tenant deposits arrears within 90 days from service of summons, the court must pass a decree for eviction.
They pointed out that the tenant admittedly filed Exhibit-11 only after 210 days, and no statutory provision permits condonation of delay. The respondents also highlighted that the tenant was not even using the premises for the past six years, underscoring absence of bona fides.
The respondents urged that concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in revision unless they are perverse — which was not the case.
6. Analysis of the law
Section 15 of the Rent Act creates a calibrated protection mechanism: the tenant must show readiness and willingness by strictly complying with statutory timelines. Sub-section (3) grants a second opportunity even after default, but only if the tenant pays arrears with 15% interest within 90 days of summons and continues payment thereafter.
The Court held that:
• Filing an application within the 90-day period is itself mandatory compliance;
• Even though the statute describes “pay or tender,” courts have interpreted timely filing of an application for permission to deposit as substantial compliance — but only if filed within 90 days;
• No clause in the Act authorises condonation of delay, and courts cannot judicially import such power.
Thus, since the tenant filed the application on 10 March 2008 — more than double the permissible period — they lost statutory protection.
7. Precedent analysis
The judgment reinforces longstanding principles in Maharashtra rent jurisprudence:
1. Strict compliance rule
Courts have consistently held that procedural timelines under rent legislation — especially concerning arrears — are mandatory because they balance tenant protection with landlord’s right to timely recovery. The present ruling aligns with this line of authority.
2. No inherent power to condone delay
By noting counsel’s concession that no provision allows condonation, the Court affirms earlier precedents that extend no equitable jurisdiction to relax statutory deadlines.
3. Deference to concurrent findings
The decision upholds the principle that revisional courts cannot re-appreciate facts unless there is clear perversity — and none existed here, given undisputed dates and delay calculations.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court emphasised that Section 15(3) is a second chance, not an indefinite invitation. Since the tenant failed to file Exhibit-11 within the 90-day statutory limit, the courts below rightly held that the tenant was not entitled to protection.
The Court rejected the request for stay, noting the admission that the suit premises were unused for six years, which undermined any equitable consideration.
It reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and that statutes prescribing explicit deadlines must be enforced as written.
9. Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, affirming:
• Tenant default stood established;
• Mandatory statutory conditions under Section 15(3) were not met;
• No power exists to condone delay in filing deposit applications;
• No equitable ground justified interference or stay.
The eviction decree therefore stands, with no stay granted.
10. Implications
This ruling strengthens clarity and certainty in rent-control litigation:
• Tenants must act within rigid timelines; delay is fatal.
• Courts cannot extend statutory grace periods in the absence of legislative authority.
• Landlords gain stronger enforceability of arrears-based eviction suits.
• Revisional courts will not reopen concurrent findings grounded in undisputed figures and dates.
• Tenants cannot claim protection while simultaneously failing to occupy the premises.
The decision reaffirms a strict statutory framework governing arrears and eviction.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, Section 15(3)
Mandates 90-day period for tendering arrears and interest; strictly applied.
General principles from established Bombay Rent jurisprudence
• No condonation power unless expressly provided;
• Strict compliance required to avoid eviction;
• Concurrent findings rarely interfered with in revision.
FAQ SECTION
1. Can a court condone delay in filing an application under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act?
No. The Act contains no provision for condonation. Filing within 90 days is mandatory.
2. What happens if a tenant deposits arrears after 90 days of receiving summons?
The tenant loses statutory protection under Section 15(3) and becomes liable for eviction on the ground of default.
3. Does non-use of premises affect the grant of stay after eviction decree?
Yes. Courts may refuse stay where the tenant is not using the premises, as it undermines pleas of hardship.
