(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the concurrent finding of fact of Court passing a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
(2.) THE premises is one room towards the north of the first floor of City Survey No. 305-AB on Guloba Road at Barashi. The property was purchased by the present plaintiff-respondent in Court auction in Regular Darkhast No. 195 of 1970 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi on January 15, 1971. The sale certificate was obtained on December 23, 1974 in pursuance of which plaintiff obtained symbolic possession by beat of drums. The plaintiff thus alleged that he became the owner of the property on January 15, 1971 and that the defendant was tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- per month. The defendant was in arrears from January 15, 1971 for a period of four years thereafter. On obtaining the symbolic possession, the plaintiff served a notice of demand dated April 30, 1975 and demanded the arrears of rent and vacant possession of the suit premises on that ground. It appears that the notice was not replied, although defendant has alleged in his evidence that he has replied the notice, there is no evidence on record of the said reply.
(3.) IN his written statement (Ex. 12), the defendant-tenant pleaded ignorance of the purchase in auction by the present plaintiff and pleaded that he came to know by way of Misc. Application No. 36 of 1972 to which he was made a party, whereunder the plaintiff got possession by beat of drums. The defendant-tenant contended in the written statement that he paid the rent to the previous landlord upto the end of December, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month and naturally pleaded that the demand at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month was excessive when the rent was Rs. 5/- per month. In the written statement the defendant-tenant raised a dispute about the standard rent contending that the standard rent should be Rs. 2/- per month. Although in the suit the plaintiff asked for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement, the ground was negatived by the trial Court and the appellate Court dealt with only the ground of arrears of rent and, therefore, in this petition the said ground alone exists for consideration.