HARI PANDURANG PATIL Vs. ANUPSING MAHENDRASING SHIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgment and order rendered by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 88/1983. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and order rendered by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), dismissing suit for eviction of the petitioner. Indisputably, house property bearing CTS No. 2121/43 situated at Navi Peth locality at Jalgaon is the ancestral property of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 used to collect rent in respect of house property and was authorised to induct tenants for himself and his brother. The petitioner is in possession of the suit tenement, which is situated in the house property in question.

(2.) The Respondent No. 1 (landlord) filed suit for eviction alleging that the Respondent No. 2 was his tenant in respect of the suit tenement and had committed default in payment of rent. It was further alleged that the Respondent No. 2, who is the original tenant, illegally and unauthorizedly subletted the suit tenement in favour of the petitioner. It was alleged that the Respondent No. 2 was in arrears of rent amount of Rs. 1800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred) for period between 1.2.1969 till 30.11.1978. The Respondent No. 1 had issued notice to the Respondent No. 2 on 12.12.1978, whereby the tenancy rights of the latter were determined with effect from 3l.12.1978. A copy of the said notice was given to the petitioner. Though, the Respondent No. 2 did not reply the said notice, yet, the petitioner gave reply and claimed that he was the tenant in respect of the suit tenement. He denied that he was in arrears of the rent amount. He further denied that he had paid rent to the Respondent No. 1 till end of 1973. He contended that the suit was filed in collusion with the Respondent No. 2. He asserted that the Respondent No. 1 was collecting excessive rent from him. He submitted separate application (Misc. Application No. 12/1979) for fixation of standard rent.

(3.) The parties went to trial over issues settled below Exh. 19. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that there was no tangible material to substantiate contention of the Respondent No. 1 as regards alleged transaction of subletting in favour of the petitioner by the Respondent No. 2. The learned Civil Judge held that the Respondent No. 1 failed to prove that the petitioner committed defaults in payment of the rent. It was held that the petitioner was tenant of the suit tenement and was entitled to protection. The learned Civil Judge fixed amount of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) as standard rent for the suit tenement. In keeping with such findings, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No. 1 preferred appeal which was allowed by the first appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and order. Needless to say, there are contrary findings of the two Courts below on the material issues involved in the present matter.