Bombay High Court Directs State to Vacate Dadar Flat after 20-Year Rent Dispute.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has clarified that while exact calculations are not typically required for regular rent payments, this does not excuse the State from neglecting its rent obligations for extended periods during an ongoing eviction lawsuit. This ruling upheld the Small Causes Court’s decision to return a flat in a prime Dadar location to its landlord.

In a decisive move to conclude a two-decade-long eviction dispute, the court instructed the State and the Mumbai Police Commissioner—listed as the tenant on the rent receipts—to vacate the flat by the end of November. The spacious 800 sq ft flat’s monthly rent was Rs 396.75.

For many years, the government had utilized the flat as official accommodation for police officers. However, the court was informed that a police officer, rather than the police commissioner, was occupying the unit.

The court clarified that there was no evidence of sub-letting, as alleged by the late landlord Dilipkumar Purandare; the core issue remained the unpaid rent.

Justice Sandeep Marne addressed a plea from the State and the police chief challenging a November 2023 Small Causes appeal court ruling, confirming that the Maharashtra government had fallen behind on rent payments.

The court noted that the State “continued its negligent approach” and failed to take advantage of legal provisions allowing it to regularly deposit rent in court after the landlord initiated the eviction suit in 2004.

The court emphasized that the government did not adhere to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, as it did not pay the overdue rent, interest, and lawsuit costs within the stipulated 90 days following the summons. This was established after hearing arguments from government lawyer A.R. Patil and the landlord’s attorney, Nusrat Shah.

In a 2016 ruling, the Small Causes Court accepted the landlord’s claim of needing the flat for his growing family and acknowledged the outstanding rent arrears.

Although the State appealed this decision, the Small Causes appellate bench ruled in 2023 that the landlord had not sufficiently proven his “bona fide requirement” but still upheld the eviction order due to the rent arrears.

This prompted the State to contest the ruling in the High Court further. Shah pointed out that the State had not made any rent payments since December 1, 1989.

Ultimately, the High Court found “no error can be traced in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Court,” thus rejecting the State and police commissioner’s plea.

The State’s lawyer requested a stay on the order, but Shah opposed this motion. Consequently, the High Court granted the State until November 30 to vacate the flat.