Six-month rent arrears unpaid after statutory notice mandate eviction under Section 12(3)(a).

The landlord alleged that the tenant’s father had executed a rent agreement on 15 July 1991 and that rent remained unpaid from 1 March 2008 to 30 September 2010.

After serving a statutory notice on 1 October 2010, the landlord brought an eviction suit.

The tenant’s reply did not dispute the landlord–tenant relationship, but the tenant later contested that relationship in the suit.

The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit, finding that the relationship had not been proved.

On appeal, the Appellate Bench reversed that decision, found the relationship established, and ordered eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenants challenged the appellate decree under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Whether the evidence established a landlord–tenant relationship sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Rent Court, despite the tenant’s challenge to the landlord’s title.

Whether the tenant’s failure to pay arrears within the statutory period entitled the landlord to an eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.

Whether the Appellate Court’s findings disclosed perversity or an error warranting interference in revision.

Section 5(3) of the Act defines “landlord” to include a person entitled or authorised to receive rent; proof of ownership is not a prerequisite to maintaining an eviction suit as landlord.

Sections 28 and 29A confer jurisdiction over landlord–tenant disputes on the designated Rent Court while preserving a party’s ability to establish title before a competent court; the Rent Court does not determine title.

The Court applied Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as estopping a tenant from disputing the landlord’s title in the tenancy relationship.

Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act, where rent is payable monthly, is in arrears for six months or more, and the tenant fails to pay within one month after statutory notice, an eviction decree follows; a standard-rent dispute must be raised within the statutory period.

The Court relied on Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani, (1989) 4 SCC 612, applying its discussion of Harbanslal Jagmohandas on the statutory timing and consequence of raising a standard-rent dispute.

Revisional interference is confined to egregious legal error, perversity, or a decision contrary to settled law, not mere reappreciation of evidence.

The High Court found that the rent agreement executed by the tenant’s father was produced and admitted by the tenant, the tenant had not disputed the landlord’s status in the reply to the statutory notice, and the original owner’s evidence supported the landlord’s authority to collect rent.

The landlord had also built the cottages and let one to the tenant’s father.

This evidence supported the Appellate Court’s finding that the plaintiff was a “landlord” under Section 5(3); proof of ownership was unnecessary, and the Rent Court was not required to determine title.

The asserted status-quo order concerning the land did not alter the Rent Court’s determination of the tenancy dispute.

The tenant had not paid the arrears within one month after notice and had not raised a standard-rent dispute within the prescribed time.

Given the monthly tenancy and arrears exceeding six months, the Court held that Section 12(3)(a) required eviction.

It found no perversity or legal error justifying revisional intervention.

The Court also rejected the tenants’ request to suspend its order to enable them to approach a higher forum.