S G BAJPAI Vs. CHIMANLAL B KANSARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1985 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palghar, in R. C. S. No. 177 of 1977 and that in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 1985 in which by judgment and order dated 22-6-1988, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant came to be dismissed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Thane.

(2.) THE plaintiff-landlord was required to file the suit against the defendant-tenant for eviction and possession on the sole ground of arrears of rent i. e. under section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "bombay Rent Act" ). It was the case of the original plaintiff-landlord that he is the owner and rent collector of a building known as "chandan Niwas" situate at Boisar, Dist. Thane, wherein the defendant is occupying Room No. 4 as a monthly tenant of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. That the defendant is in arrears of rent from 1-10-1973 till 28-2-1977 i. e. for a period of 41 months amounting to Rs. 1330 and, therefore, by notice dated 15-3-1977 the tenancy of the defendant was deemed to be terminated. The said notice was acknowledged and received by the defendant on 18-3-1977 and in spite of notice, the defendant failed to pay arrears of rent and also rent for the period of March and April 1977. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the period commencing from 1-5-1977 till 30-9-1977 i. e. for a period of five months and, therefore, according to the plaintiff, as the defendant was in arrears of rent for a period exceeding six months, he was liable to be evicted.

(3.) THE defendant took up the plea that the plaintiff is not the only owner of the suit premises. That the plaintiff being joint owner of the suit chawl along with other co-owners, he alone cannot file the present suit. The defendant also took up the plea that it is not the plaintiff alone who has been collecting rent, but other co-owners and co-sharers are also collecting rent from the defendant. This was in addition to other issues raised by the defendant such as the plaintiffs claim is false, frivolous and bad in law and that the defendants tenancy is not validly terminated and so on.