KARAMCHAND DEOJEE SANGHAVI Vs. TULSIRAM KALU KUMAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER-LANDLORD herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 87/1976 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in the payment of the rent for a period of more than six months and for his bona fide reasonable need. He also prayed arrears of the rent for last three years and notice expenses. It was contended by the landlord that a room admeasuring 10 ft. x 8 ft. and open space admeasuring 15 ft. x 8 ft. which is part of the property known by City Survey No. 3912, 3915 and 3917 situated at Dattawadi in Chalisgaon town was let out by the original landlord tenant respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 2/- and the tenant has not paid the rent from 1st of February, 1967 to 28th February, 1975. The property in dispute came to be purchased by the present petitioner on 20th March, 1971.

(2.) PLAINTIFF issued a notice purporting to be under section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947, claiming that the tenant should pay a sum of Rs. 194/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 4/- as the rent for the two months of march and April, 1975. He also claimed Rs. 16. 65 Ps. as expenses for the notice. This notice was replied on 22nd March, 1975 by the tenant- defendant. Firstly he contended that he has paid the rent to the old landlord and he was not in know of the fact that the ownership of the disputed property is transferred. He further contended that since last one and half year he has not paid the rent which he could not pay since he was not knowing a to which are the heirs of the deceased landlord. He further contended that since petitioner has become the landlord on 20th March, 1971, he is remitting a sum of Rs. 97/- being the rent for the period from 20th March, 1971 to the end of March, 1975. It is not in dispute that the Money Order of Rs. 97/- was sent by the tenant which came to be refused by the landlord. It is also not in dispute that the sale-deed executed in favour of the present petitioner authorities him to collect the rent which has already become due in respect of the suit property.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (J. D.), Chalisgaon, who tried and decided Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 1976, was pleased to hold that the defendant tenant is in arrears from 1st February, 1967. Defendant has not proved that he has paid the rent till 1970. Landlord has failed to prove that he requires the suit premises for reasonable bona fide need but he is entitled to recover the possession on the ground of default for a period of more than six months. This judgment and decree by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.), Chalisgaon, dated 13th March, 1980, was challenged in an appeal bearing No. 94/1980. The learned district Judge, Jalgaon, was pleased to allow this appeal. He dismissed the suit so far as substantive prayer for possession was concerned and substituted the monetary decree by the trial Court by lesser figure of Rs. 88. 85 Ps. This judgment and decree dated 5th February, 1982, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.