DATTATRAYA SAVLARAM GHADIGAONKAR Vs. SATYAPAL UTTAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the original Defendant/tenant and Respondent is the original Plaintiff/landlord. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to "landlord" and "tenant".

(2.) A suit was filed by landlord for eviction of tenant from the suit premises on various grounds which were available to him under sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. It was contended by the landlord that the rent of the first floor was Rs 413.70 ps, rent of the second floor was Rs 385.71 ps, rent of the terrace was Rs 195/- and the entire monthly rent was to the tune of Rs 994.41 ps. It was contended, firstly, that the tenant did not pay the rent in respect of the suit premises in spite of repeated demands made by the landlord. Secondly, it was contended that the tenant had carried out alterations and additions of permanent nature without permission of the landlord. It was contended that the tenant had constructed 10 moris in the suit premises. It was contended that the tenant had constructed permanent passage joining the adjoining building. It was contended that two iron gates were also constructed. According to the landlord, tenant did not obtain sanction of the BMC in respect of the said constructions. Thirdly, it was contended that the premises were required reasonably and for bona fide for himself. Fourthly, it was contended that the tenant caused nuisance to the other tenants and occupants and used to threaten the landlord when the landlord used to collect the rent. Lastly, it was contended that th suit premises were not used in a proper manner and, therefore, tenant had committed breach of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) The notice of demand and termination of tenancy was sent to the tenant by RPAD and one copy was sent under Certificate of Posting and the third copy was pasted on the suit premises and, therefore, the tenancy was properly and validly terminated. It was contended that the tenant had not raised any dispute about the standard rent and, therefore, he was not entitled to get protection under section 12(3)(b).