LAWS(BOM)-2000-11-39

GOVINDRAO KISAN JOGI Vs. PADMAKAR BHALCHANDRARAO JAHAGIRDAR

Decided On November 30, 2000
GOVINDRAO KISAN JOGI Appellant
V/S
PADMAKAR BHALCHANDRARAO JAHAGIRDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Respondent filed Case No. 81/rc/rc-17 before the Rent Controller, jalna against Kisan son of Deodhar Jogi and he contended that the suit property was leased to Kisan for his residence as a monthly tenant. Kisan had failed to pay the rent and, therefore, a proceedings was filed for recovery of the rent, contending that, as per the agreement, rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 10 (O. S.) per month, Kisan had failed to pay the rent and, therefore, it was a suit for recovery of rent. However, in the said suit, Kisan took the stand that the rent was not Rs. 10 (O. S.) per month. He was doing the work of beating drum at the temple. There was no rent for the premises, which he was occupying. However, after the police Action, he was paying the rent of Rs. 3 per month. Because of this stand taken by Kisan in the previous matter, it was held that the plaintiff could not prove that the rent of Rs. lo (O. S.) per month and, therefore, the matter was dismissed. The appeal filed by the Respondent was also dismissed.

(2.) NOW, it is the contention of the Respondent that the appeal was dismissed on 17th June 1958; however, Kisan had not paid the rent since 21-5-1957; he is in arrears of rent for 22 years even as per his contention that the rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 3 per month. Inspite of various demands, Kisan failed to pay the rent and, so, he claimed possession of the suit premises. The suit is brought by the respondent contending that he is the trustee of Shri Ganpati Mandir, Juna Jalna, trust and the property belongs to the Trust.

(3.) KISAN appeared and filed written statement. He denied that Padmakar had any locus standi to file the suit. He further contended that already the matter is decided that monthly rent was not Rs. 10 (O S.), but it was Rs. 3 per month and, in such circumstances, all the contentions of the plaintiff are false. He has also contended that he was paying the rent regularly, but no receipts were issued. He has further contended that he is always ready and willing to pay the rent. He further contended that, as then the rents of the premises had gone up in Jalna city, a false proceedings was filed.