VISHWANATH SADASHIV KARANDIKAR Vs. GOKALDAS RAMDAS GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the suit premises which is a cinema theatre in Satara City. The petitioner had agreed to pay from Oct. 24, 1965 Rs. 425.00, as the monthly rent to the opponent-landlord. On Dec. 21, 1965 the landlord served a notice on the petitioner terminating his tenancy, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner received the notice on Dec. 23, 1965. On Jan. 18, 1966 the petitioner made an application under Sec. 11 (3) of the Rent Act requesting the Court to fix the standard rent on the ground that the agreed rent was excessive.

(2.) During the pendency of this application as no further steps were taken by the petitioner, opponent gave an application purporting to be also under Sec. 11 (3) of the Rent Act asking the Court to dismiss the petitioner's application for fixation of standard rent. The opponent in the application urged that the petitioner had failed and neglected to get interim rent fixed ; the petitioner had not even sought orders from the Court regarding the deposit of rent the petitioner had not tendered any amount from month to month on account of the rent to the opponent-landlord ; and that in view of the amended provision's of Sec. 11 (3) the petitioner's application for fixation of standard rent be dismissed in limine. The petitioner resisted this application on the ground that the Court had not passed any order fixing the interim rent and for that reason 'he could not deposit any amount in the Court. He also pleaded that a larger amount was due to him from the opponent-landlord on account of expenses incurred by him for the upkeep of the suit premises. There were also other money dealings between the parties. Finally the petitioner requested the Court to fix the interim rent and expressed his willingness that he would go on depositing the monthly rent even at the rate of Rs. 425.00 per month. The, learned trial Judge on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the amended provisions of Sec. 11 of the Rent Act came to the conclusion that it would not be just and equitable to dismiss the petitioner's application. The learned trial judge fixed the interim rent at Rs. 425.00 pending the final disposal of the application. The opponent-landlord invoked the revisional powers of the District Court under the Rent Act on the ground that the learned trial Judge had acted contrary to law and the express provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge, Satara, who heard the revision application, was inclined to take the view that under Sec. It (3) of the Rent Act it was the duty of the petitioner tenant to have the interim rent fixed or to pay the contractual rent from month to month. If the tenant-applicant fails to follow this course and fails to deposit the amount of rent his application should be dismissed Accordingly the learned Assistant Judge allowed the revision application, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge and directed the dismissal of the petitioner's application under Sec. 11 (3) of the Rent Act. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the learned Assistant Judge has acted contrary to the express provisions of Sec. 11 (3) of the Rent Act and that his order deserves to be set aside and that of the learned trial Judge restored.

(3.) Mr. Abhyankar for the petitioner argue, that on a plain reading of Sec. 11 (3) there is no warrant for the view that the tenant-applicant must take some steps for getting the interim rent fixed by the Court. That Sub-section provides that if the tenant-applicant fails to deposit the interim rent fixed by the Court, then only his application shall be dismissed.