Summary
Eviction was sustained on the ground of continuous non-user, although nuisance and unlawful subletting were not established. The relevant period was the six months immediately preceding suit, and the landlord retained the burden. On the evidence, including absence of business registration during 2006, the Court declined interference with the concurrent non-user finding. Registration alone would not prove actual use. Additional evidence was refused because the requirements for its admission were not met.
Issues
- Whether eviction was supported by nuisance, subletting or statutory non-user.
- What period and evidence were relevant to non-user and whether additional evidence should be admitted.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(1)(n), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999Required non-use without reasonable cause for the letting purpose throughout the six months immediately preceding suit; eviction was sustained on that ground on these facts. (¶¶ 18–20, 25–31)
Held
- Nuisance was not sufficiently established by the occasional visitor’s testimony and written complaint without adequate particulars or supporting occupier evidence in this case. (¶ 15)
- The pleaded subletting to a named third party lacked particulars and proof of exclusive possession. Subletting to the tenant’s father was a different case developed in argument and was unsustainable given the pleadings and circumstances. (¶ 16–17)
- Non-user had to cover the continuous six months immediately before institution, for the purpose for which the premises were let and without reasonable cause. The landlord bore the burden. (¶¶ 18–20, 25, 29)
- The business registration evidence did not cover 2006. Registration by itself would not prove actual use, which could be shown by matters such as electricity bills, wages or business transactions. With the other evidence and concurrent findings, interference was unwarranted. (¶¶ 27–29, 31)
- The proposed additional notice and fine material could not be admitted without satisfying Order XLI Rule 27; the application was dismissed. (¶ 30)
Result
Appeal dismissed and eviction sustained on non-user under Section 16(1)(n). Nuisance and subletting findings not sustained. Application to introduce additional evidence dismissed.