SHIVNATH Vs. RAMDAYAL SURAJMAL RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. C.V. Korhalkar, learned Counselfv. appearing for the Petitioners, states that some amendment in cause title of the petition is already permitted and inadvertently, he could not carry out the same. He, therefore, seeks leave to carry out the amendment immediately. Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/5, has no objection. Hence, leave granted. Necessary amendment be effected immediately.

(2.) By this petition filed under 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners / tenants are assailing the judgment dated 2nd January 1990, delivered by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1986. That appeal was filed by the Petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1985, passed by the learned I Ind Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) & J.M.F.C., Kopargaon, in Civil Suit No. 457 of 1979. The present Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 instituted that suit for possession of suit premises on account of arrears in payment of rent, as per provisions of Section 12(1) and (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "Bombay Rent Act").

(3.) In view of precise contentions raised before this Court, it is not necessary to go into factual details. Mr. C.V. Korhalkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has contended that service of notice contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act has not been established by the Respondent / landlord and hence, institution of suit itself is bad in law. The judgment and decree delivered therein is, therefore, unsustainable. His second contention is that the law permits the Petitioner / tenant to file proceedings for determination of fair rent within a period of one month after such notice is served upon him. In the present case, on 31-8-1976, such proceedings were filed before the competent authority as per Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act. In those proceedings, the Petitioner / tenant continued to deposit the agreed rent of Rs. 30/- per month and though those proceedings were unfortunately dismissed in default, the Petitioner has continued to deposit that amount till date. He, in fact, wanted to produce on record, a chart to demonstrate that at every interval of six months, till date, the rent arrears have been deposited in those rent proceedings by the Petitioner / tenant. He has further urged that there was also some dispute between the co-owners (landlords) and it resulted into filing of Regular Civil Suit No. 840/1975 amongst themselves. The Petitioner was also joined as party Defendant in that suit and he had a direction not to pay the rent and, therefore, the amount was not paid.