PANDURANG NARAYAN NEMADE Vs. SONUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-original defendants (tenant) seek to challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the legality and correctness of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

(2.) IN a suit for ejectment filed by the respondent-landlord both the Courts have granted decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The dispute relates to a shop where Pandurang Nemade original tenant since deceased was carrying on laundry business. Petitioners are the heirs of original tenant who died during the pendency of proceedings in trial Court. The shop is situated at Kolhapur. The respondent-landlady vide her notice dated 16th October, 1972 called upon Pandurang Nemade who was tenant to pay the arrears of rent for September, 1971 to September, 1972 with permitted increases. In the notice the respondent demanded Rs. 260/- towards rent and Rs. 140/- towards permitted increases. The respondent called upon the said tenant to pay the arrears within 7 days. Since Pandurang Nemade did not comply with the notice, the respondent on 22.7.1975 filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of default for more than six months in paying the rent and prayed for decree for eviction.

(3.) TRIAL Court framed as many as 12 issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence at the trial. The learned trial Judge held that the petitioners did send the arrears of rent of Rs. 260/- within 30 days which the landlady refused to accept. The learned trial Judge further held that the demand of permitted increases of Rs. 140/- was not legal but in fact permitted increases per month would be only 62 paise. For the year 1970-71 according to the learned trial Judge permitted increases would come to Rs. 8.08. The learned trial Judge took the view that the petitioners failed and neglected to pay Rs. 8.08 towards permitted increases within 30 days and also failed to raise dispute in that behalf within statutory period. They are thus defaulters. Consistent with these findings the learned trial Judge passed a decree for eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.