MADHUKAR GOVIND VAIDYA Vs. NARAYAN HARISHCHANDRA SURVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by two courts below in dismissing the suit for possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE petitioner gave notice to the respondent on June 12, 1980 demanding arrears of rent in respect of the suit premises for a period between December 1979 and May 1980. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month and permitted increases. The respondent gave reply to the suit notice on July 17, 1980 and disputed that he was liable to vacate the suit premises on the ground of default. According to the respondent, he was regularly paying the rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 15/- per month as well as the permitted increases from time to time. The respondent claims that he had tendered rent by money order on three occasions, lastly on April 22, 1980, just before the issuance of the suit notice and on all the three occasions the landlord refused to accept the rent without any valid reason. According to the respondent, since the respondent has tendered rent from time to time, it cannot be said that he was a wilful defaulter so as to invite action under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) THE petitioner instituted suit for possession before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pen, being Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1981. The respondent resisted the said suit by filing written statement. After recording oral evidence and considering the rival contentions the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 18-1-1983 was pleased to dismiss the suit. The trial Court mainly held that from the material on record, it cannot be said that the respondent was a wilful defaulter or had failed and neglected to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The trial Court thus refused to grant decree of eviction on the ground of default. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the District Court, Raigad at Alibag. The Appellate Court on re-examination of the evidence on record affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondent was not a wilful defaulter or having failed and neglected to pay the agreed rent in respect of the suit premises.