TARABAI SHIVLAL PARDESHI Vs. MURLIDHAR PARAJI DEVDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 has been filed by the legal heirs of the original landlord taking exception to the decision of the Extra-Judicial District Judge, dated 4th December, 1986 in Civil Appeal No. 851 of 1984.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the present petition are that, the respondent was inducted in the premises consisting of a block of three rooms on the first floor at House No. 97, Mangalwar Peth, Pune 411 011, by the landlord pursuant to lease deed Exh. 54 dated 12-6-1967 at the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ -. It is stated that the respondent was in arrears for a period from 1-5-1975 onwards, for which, landlords issued demand notice on 17th May, 1976 (Exh. 64 ). It is the case of the landlords that the said notice was duly received by the respondent on 21st May, 1976. This is, however, disputed and the finding of the courts below is that the said notice was registered on 23rd May, 1976 and received thereafter. Both the courts below have concurrently found that, immediately after the receipt of the demand notice, the respondent raised a dispute regarding the amount of rent and also filed an application for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act on 28th June, 1976, which has been held to be within one month from the date of receipt of the suit notice.

(3.) IT is interesting to note that, after the suit notice was duly served upon the respondents, the landlords slept over the matter as late as till 17th January, 1980 to file the present suit for possession against the respondents. It is doubtful as to whether a suit can be filed on the ground of default after a lapse of almost three and half years from the service of suit notice. However, neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court has gone into the said aspect of the matter.