SUGARBAI M SIDDIQ Vs. RAMESH S HANKARE D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common order of the high Court of Judicature of Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, passed in writ petition no. 307 of 1991 and in writ petition no. 3262 of 198 9/10/1996. The appeal arising out of order in writ petition no. 3262 of 1989 is not pressed. The facts in the appeal arising out of order in writ petition no. 307 of 1991 which are relevant for our purposes, may be noticed here.

(2.) The appellants are the landlords of premises bearing municipal no. 2573 (city survey nos. 27 and 27-A) in Mochi Lane ahmednagar (for short 'the premises') and the respondents are the legal representatives of the original tenant (hereinafter referred to as, 'the respondents'). The appellants filed suit no. 756 of 1978 in the court of the joint civil judge, junior division at Ahmednagar against the respondents seeking their eviction on two grounds-the first is non-payment of rent for more than six months even after notice of demand under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and the second is reasonable and bona fide requirement of the appellants, under section 13 (g) of the act. The only ground which now survives is the first ground, namely, default in payment of rent for the period exceeding six months from 1/01/197 8/06/1978. A notice demanding the rent was sent to the respondents on 3/07/1978 which was served on 14/07/1978; the demand in the notice was not fulfilled within the statutory period of one month. The respondents contested the suit stating that they did not receive the notice; that rent was sent by money order but the appellants refused to accept the same; that they had already paid the rent and, therefore, the ground was not available to the appellants.

(3.) On consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the trial court found that the amount was not paid within the permissible period and decreed the suit for eviction on 15/07/1981. On appeal by the respondents herein the order of eviction was maintained and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on 23/12/1983. That order was assailed by the respondents herein before the High Court in writ petition no. 307 of 1991 which was allowed on 17/10/1996 by setting aside the order of the appellate court confirming the order of the trial court. It is against that order that the present appeal is preferred.