RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA NATU Vs. DATTATRAYA SITARAM SALGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the common question of the law-----arise in both the petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in Writ Petition No. 686 of 1988 are the respondent Nos. 2a to 2f in Writ Petition No. 3551 of 1988, and are hereinafter referred to as "the petitioners", the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 686 of 1988 are the petitioners in another writ petition are hereinafter referred to as "the respondents" and the respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 686 of 1998 is the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 3551 of 1988 and is hereinafter referred to as "the original tenant". The respondents are the landlords and the plaintiffs in the suit for eviction filed by them against the petitioners and the original tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting of the premises by original tenant to the petitioners.

(3.) THE facts in brief are that the respondents while complaining of non payment of rent in respect of the suit premises from February 1973 till July 1975 served a notice of demand dated 3-7-1975 upon the petitioners and the original tenant. It was also grievance of the respondents that the suit premises had been illegally occupied by the petitioners and therefore there was sub-letting of the suit premises by the original tenant. The said notice was followed by the eviction suit and trial Court after recording the evidence, holding that the petitioners were liable to pay the arrears of rent ordered payment thereof but dismissed the suit as far as relief regarding possession of the premises was concerned on the ground that the respondent had failed to establish that a valid notice in terms of section 12 (2) of the Rent Act was served upon the petitioners prior to institution of the suit. On appeal against the said judgment, the Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment of the trial Court on the said point, held that petitioners had enough knowledge of the notice of demand and therefore, they ought to have paid the arrears of rent within a period of one month having failed to do so they were liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent and therefore, ordered the eviction of the petitioners and deliver of the possession of the suit premises to the respondents.