SMT. MANNATABAI LATIF MULAN Vs. PARISAPPA KALAPPA HALINGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated August 31, 1989 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 54 of 1983.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises consisting of one room 12 ft. x 10 ft in a building situated on a plot No. 633, Raviwar Peth, Madhav Nagar, Tal-Miraj, District Sangli. The Respondent-landlord issued notice dated June 23, 1982 demanding arrears of rent from the Petitioner-tenant for the period from December 1980 to 30th May 1982. It is not in dispute that the said notice was duly served upon the Petitioner-tenant on June 24, 1982. Since the Petitioner did not offer the demanded amount nor raised any dispute regarding the Standard Rent within the specified time of one month from the date of receipt of suit notice, eventually the Respondent-landlord filed suit in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli being Regular Civil Suit No. 324 of 1982 for possession of the suit premises on the ground of default within the meaning of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act.

(3.) The Petitioner resisted the said suit. The defence taken by the Petitioner was that the Petitioner was regularly paying the rent to the landlord but the landlord did not issue rent receipts. This defence has been negatived by the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court passed the decree against the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter carried the matter in the Appeal before the District Judge being Regular Civil Appeal No.54 of 1985. The District Court after re appreciating the evidence on record took the view that the Petitioner was defaulter within the meaning of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act and, therefore, maintained the decree of possession by decreeing the Appeal.