How Should a Tenant Respond to an Eviction Notice?

Vikrant D. Shetty

Aug 10

11 min read

Updated: Aug 26

How Should a Tenant Respond to an Eviction Notice?

A tenant who receives a demand notice, a suit summons, or a Section 24 application before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay should first identify which document has been served, since each triggers a different deadline under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. A demand notice under Section 15(2) allows ninety days to pay or tender the rent claimed before a suit can be filed at all. A suit summons requires a written statement within the time the court allows, and missing it can result in an ex parte decree. This post sets out the deadlines at each stage and the grounds on which eviction can genuinely be contested.

What Has Actually Been Served on the Tenant?

Not every document that arrives at a tenant's door carries the same legal weight. Confusing one for another is the first mistake tenants make.

The Section 15(2) Demand Notice: A Precondition, Not a Suit

Before a landlord can file a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 requires a written notice demanding the arrears, given in the manner prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The notice is not the suit itself. It is a statutory precondition to filing one, and if the tenant pays or tenders the rent demanded within ninety days of service, the landlord cannot rely on default as a ground for eviction at all. Dismissing this notice on the reasoning that nothing has actually been filed in court is a mistake: this ninety-day window is the cheapest opportunity to close the issue before any litigation cost is incurred.

Suit Summons in a Rent, Eviction and Application Suit

Once a suit for possession, generally referred to in registry parlance as an RAE (Rent, Eviction, Application) suit, is instituted, jurisdiction ordinarily rests with the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, applying the procedure of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as modified for such suits. A summons served at this stage requires the tenant to enter appearance and, in due course, file a written statement. This is a separate clock from the Section 15(2) notice. A tenant who ignored the earlier notice, or who disputes that it was validly served, must still respond to the summons on its own terms.

Section 24 Applications: Eviction of an Overholding Licensee

Where the underlying arrangement is a leave and license rather than a tenancy, a faster route is available to the licensor. Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 allows an application to the Competent Authority (in Mumbai, a judge of the Court of Small Causes) seeking eviction of a licensee who fails to hand over vacant possession after the license period expires. A licence creates no interest in the property; it confers only personal permission to occupy, and courts have consistently distinguished it from a lease. That distinction is why the Section 24 procedure is deliberately more summary than a full RAE suit. A licensee served with such an application must file a reply within the time the Competent Authority fixes. There is little room for delay once that clock starts.

Why the Response Window Cannot Be Treated as Flexible

Every stage above carries its own deadline. Small Causes Court practice in Mumbai treats these deadlines with more rigidity than tenants often expect.

The Section 15(3) Cure: A Second, Costlier Chance

Even after a suit is filed on the ground of default, Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 gives the tenant one further opportunity. If, within ninety days from service of the suit summons, the tenant pays or deposits in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due, together with simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum on the arrears, no decree for eviction can be passed on that ground. The protection is unforgiving. The tenant must also keep paying or depositing rent regularly for the remainder of the suit, and even an inadvertent shortfall can be treated as non-compliance. A tenant who deposits less than what is due, or who disputes the landlord's calculation without either paying in full or applying for fixation of standard rent, risks losing the protection altogether.

What Happens if No Written Statement Is Filed?

A tenant who does not appear or file a written statement within the time allowed loses the ability to place a defence on record. The suit proceeds without the tenant's version of events ever being tested, and the court decides on the material the landlord alone has placed before it. This is how most ex parte eviction decrees arise: not because the tenant necessarily had no defence, but because no defence was formally raised in time.

Grounds on Which Eviction Can Genuinely Be Contested

A written statement is not a formality to be filed and forgotten. It is where the tenant's actual defence gets recorded, and several defences are regularly available depending on the facts.

Denying That the Pleaded Ground Exists

Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lists the grounds on which a landlord may seek possession, including bona fide requirement, unauthorised subletting, structural damage, nuisance, and non-user, apart from default, which is addressed separately under Section 15. A tenant is entitled to simply deny that the pleaded ground exists and put the landlord to strict proof of it. Courts will not presume a ground. The burden of establishing it rests on the landlord throughout the suit.

Disputing the Landlord's Bona Fide Requirement

Where the landlord seeks possession for personal occupation, the tenant may contest whether the requirement is genuine, whether the landlord has reasonably comparable alternative accommodation, and how comparative hardship weighs between the parties. Courts are generally reluctant to let a tenant dictate how a landlord should reorganise the landlord's own accommodation. But a requirement that is contrived, premature, or already satisfied elsewhere remains open to challenge on the facts of each case.

Disputing Arrears or Establishing Tender

A tenant who maintains that rent was, in fact, paid or tendered, whether directly, by money order, or through deposit in court, can raise this as a complete defence to the default ground, provided the tender is proved and of the correct amount. Where landlord and tenant genuinely disagree on the standard rent, the correct course is not to withhold payment altogether but to deposit the undisputed portion and pursue a separate application for fixation of standard rent. Silence, or a partial payment left unexplained, invites an adverse finding.

Disputing Sub-Letting

Because unauthorised subletting is a ground for eviction, a landlord alleging it must establish both parting with exclusive possession and payment of consideration for that arrangement. A tenant who allows a family member, employee, or guest to occupy part of the premises, without any transfer of exclusive possession or payment, has a substantive defence available. Mere sharing of premises, without more, does not amount to subletting within the meaning of the Act.

The Ex Parte Decree: How It Arises and How It Can Be Undone

Where no written statement is filed, or where the tenant is absent when the suit is called for hearing, the court may proceed to record evidence and pass a decree in the tenant's absence.

How Can an Ex Parte Decree Be Set Aside Under Order IX Rule 13?

A tenant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed is not without a remedy. An application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be made to the same court, and it succeeds only where the tenant establishes either that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance when the suit was called for hearing. The Supreme Court, in Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti [(2011) 3 SCC 545], explained sufficient cause as turning on whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present and did everything reasonably possible to do so. Mere carelessness, or an explanation offered only after the event, will not suffice.

Limitation Runs Fast

An application to set aside an ex parte decree must ordinarily be filed within thirty days from the date of the decree under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or from the date of knowledge where summons was never duly served. Delay beyond this period can be condoned only on a fresh showing of sufficient cause for the delay itself, a separate burden layered on top of the merits. Tenants who discover a decree only once execution begins often find that window already closed, with just a narrow argument on service left.

Continuing to Pay Rent While the Suit Is Pending

Whatever defence a tenant raises, one obligation runs in parallel throughout the litigation: rent, or an amount equivalent to it, should continue to be paid or deposited regularly for the duration of the suit. This is not merely prudent. It is a statutory condition attached to the Section 15(3) protection, and a default occurring after the suit is filed can be treated as a fresh instance of non-payment, independent of whatever dispute is already before the court. A tenant willing to litigate a genuine defence, who then stops paying rent in the interim, hands the landlord an additional, undisputed ground that did not exist when the suit was filed.

Response Windows at a Glance

Trigger	Governing Provision	Tenant's Window	Consequence of Missing It
Landlord's demand notice for rent arrears (pre-suit)	Section 15(2), MRCA 1999 with Section 106, TPA 1882	90 days from service to pay or tender arrears	Suit for eviction on default ground becomes maintainable
Suit summons in an RAE suit on the default ground	Section 15(3), MRCA 1999	90 days from service of summons to deposit arrears with 15% interest in court	Statutory protection against a default decree is lost
Written statement in a contested RAE suit	Order VIII Rule 1, CPC 1908, applied via Section 43, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882	Ordinarily 30 days, extendable at the court's discretion	Suit may proceed and be decided without the tenant's defence on record
Reply to a Section 24 leave and license application	Section 24, MRCA 1999	Time fixed by the Competent Authority in the notice	Summary eviction order for overholding may follow
Application to set aside an ex parte decree	Order IX Rule 13, CPC 1908; Article 123, Limitation Act 1963	30 days from the date of the decree, or from knowledge where service is disputed	Decree becomes final and executable

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the first thing a tenant should do on receiving a demand notice for rent arrears?

Read it carefully to confirm the amount claimed, the period covered, and the date of service, since the ninety-day window under Section 15(2) runs from service, not from the date printed on the notice. Where the amount is genuinely owed, paying or tendering it within that period avoids a suit altogether.

Can a tenant be evicted without ever appearing before the court?

Yes. If summons is duly served and the tenant neither appears nor files a written statement, the court can hear the suit and pass a decree ex parte, based only on the landlord's material.

Does paying arrears under Section 15(3) end the case entirely?

It defeats the default ground, but only if the deposit is complete, includes the required interest, and is followed by regular payments for the rest of the suit. It does not touch any other ground, such as bona fide requirement or subletting, that the landlord may separately have pleaded.

Is legal representation compulsory before the Small Causes Court?

It is not compulsory, but given the compressed timelines for demand notices, suit summons, and Section 24 applications, most tenants engage counsel promptly on receiving a notice or summons. The deadlines leave little room to correct a missed step later.

How is a Section 24 leave and license eviction different from an RAE suit?

A Section 24 application proceeds before the Competent Authority in a more summary manner than a full RAE suit, and is available only where the underlying arrangement is a genuine leave and license rather than a tenancy. Whether an arrangement is truly a licence or a disguised lease is itself frequently disputed, and can decide which procedure applies at all.

What happens if a tenant discovers an ex parte decree only after execution has begun?

The tenant can still apply under Order IX Rule 13, but the thirty-day limitation period under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will usually have expired by then, unless the summons was never duly served, in which case time runs from the date of knowledge rather than the date of the decree. Any further delay must be separately explained and condoned.

If a tenant disputes the amount of rent claimed, can payment simply be withheld until the dispute is resolved?

Withholding payment entirely is risky. Courts have treated tenants who dispute the landlord's calculation and pay nothing, rather than depositing the undisputed portion or applying for fixation of standard rent, as having failed to show readiness and willingness to pay. That finding alone can undermine the protection Section 15 is meant to provide.

Can a landlord evict a tenant without first issuing a Section 15(2) demand notice?

Yes, where the ground pleaded is not default in payment of rent. The Section 15(2) demand notice under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is a precondition only for the default ground. For grounds such as bona fide requirement, unauthorised subletting, or nuisance under Section 16, no equivalent demand notice is required before filing the suit, though the suit summons itself must still be validly served.

What should a tenant do if a demand notice or summons was served at the wrong address?

Improper service is a valid ground to contest the proceedings and, if a decree has already been passed, to apply under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set it aside. A tenant should raise the defect as soon as it is discovered, since establishing that summons was never duly served also extends the time available to challenge an ex parte decree, which otherwise runs from the date of the decree itself.

Does promising to pay arrears satisfy the Section 15(3) protection?

No. Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 requires the tenant to actually pay or deposit the standard rent, permitted increases, and interest at fifteen per cent per annum in court within ninety days of service of the suit summons. A promise or part-payment without the full deposit does not satisfy the provision, and the protection against a default-based decree is lost.

Can an eviction decree passed by the Court of Small Causes be appealed?

Yes. A decree passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in a suit for eviction can be appealed to the Appellate Bench of the same court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, rather than to the District Court, since RAE suits follow a distinct appellate structure. The limitation period for filing such an appeal is materially shorter than for an ordinary civil appeal, so a tenant considering an appeal should not delay.

What test did the Supreme Court set out for 'sufficient cause' when seeking to set aside an ex parte decree?

The Supreme Court, in Parimal v. Veena alias Bharti [(2011) 3 SCC 545], explained sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as turning on whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present and did everything reasonably possible to do so. Mere carelessness, or an explanation offered only after the decree is passed, will generally not satisfy this standard before the Court of Small Causes.

What happens if a landlord's suit combines multiple grounds, such as default and bona fide requirement, and the tenant defeats only one?

A landlord's suit for eviction can plead more than one ground, such as default in rent along with bona fide requirement or subletting, under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and defeating one ground, for instance by curing default under Section 15(3), does not by itself defeat the others. The court examines each pleaded ground independently on the evidence led, and eviction can still follow if any of the remaining grounds is established.

Can a landlord amend the grounds pleaded in an eviction suit after it has been filed?

A landlord may seek to amend the grounds pleaded in an eviction suit, but only with the leave of the Court of Small Causes under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and generally where the amendment does not introduce a wholly new cause of action once the trial has substantially progressed. A tenant opposing such an amendment can argue prejudice, particularly where the new ground would require fresh evidence or defeats a limitation-linked defence already available.