PARVATIBAI MARUTI HANDE Vs. SATISH MOHANRAM PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the judgment of the Vth Additional District Judge, Thane dated 18th December, 1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 193 of 1985.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner is the landlady while the respondent is the tenant who was inducted in the suit premises in the year 1977 which consisted of only one room admeasuring 7 x 7 situated at Janu Bhendi Pada, Ambernath. The petitioner gave notice on 10th December, 1978 to the respondent demanding arrears of rent from January, 1978 to November, 1978. This notice was duly replied by the respondent. It is the respondents case that besides sending reply the respondent offered the payment but the landlady refused to accept the same. Nevertheless, the petitioner sent another notice which is the suit notice dated 8th February, 1979 (Exhibit 20) demanding arrears from January, 1978 to January, 1979. By the said notice, the petitioner claims to have terminated the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the suit premises.

(3.) IT is stated that since the respondent did not offer the amount as demanded in the suit notice nor raised any dispute regarding standard rent of the suit premises within a period of one month from the date of reply of the suit notice, the respondent had become liable to be evicted within the meaning of section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. There is, however, a serious dispute regarding the service of the suit notice on the respondent. If it is held that the suit notice has not been duly served on the respondent, in that case the suit for possession and arrears filed by the petitioner will naturally have to be dismissed for non-complying with the mandatory requirement of giving prior notice to the tenant under section 12 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the question which will have to be considered in this case is whether the suit notice dated 8th February, 1979 (Exhibit 20) has been duly served on the respondent and, if the same is answered in the negative, the suit will have to be dismissed on that count alone.