The Bombay High Court stated that while mathematical precision is not required for regular rent payments, this does not imply that the State could avoid its obligations to pay rent for months or even years during the duration of an eviction suit. The court upheld the Small Causes Court's orders to return a flat located in a prime area of Dadar to its landlord.
This ruling concluded a 20-year eviction dispute by directing 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 monthly rent for the spacious 800 sq ft flat was Rs 396.75. The government had utilized the flat for many years as official accommodation for police officers, with the court being informed that a police officer—not the police commissioner—was residing there.
The courts determined that there had been no sub-letting, as claimed by the late landlord, Dilipkumar Purandare; however, the issue of unpaid rent remained.
Justice Sandeep Marne of the High Court ruled on a plea filed by the State and the police chief in response to a Small Causes appellate court judgment from November 2023, affirming that the Maharashtra government was in arrears for rent. He criticized the government for its "negligent approach" and noted that it failed to utilise the legal provision that allows for the regular deposit of rent in court when the landlord filed an eviction suit in 2004.
The court emphasized that the government did not comply with the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act by failing to deposit the overdue rent, interest, and legal costs within 90 days of the service of the suit summons. Furthermore, it did not continue to make regular rent deposits in court. This conclusion was reached after hearing arguments from government lawyer A R Patil and the landlord's counsel, Nusrat Shah.
In 2016, the Small Causes Court had accepted the landlord's plea regarding the bona fide need for the flat due to his expanding family and the issue of unpaid rent. The State then appealed to the Small Causes appellate bench, which in 2023 acknowledged the State's argument that the landlord had not proven a "bona fide requirement." Nevertheless, it upheld the eviction order based on the unpaid rent arrears, leading the State to challenge this decision in the High Court. Shah contended that the State had not paid rent arrears since December 1, 1989.
