RAMCHANDRA APPAJI HANJAGE Vs. MAHAVIR GAJANAN MUG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raise an interesting and important question of law relating to interpretation and application of section 12 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act ). The relevant question arising for consideration of the Court is formulated as under:---

(2.) THE petitioners are heirs and legal representatives of one Ramchandra Appaji Hanjage, the original tenant in respect of the premises precisely described in paragraph 1 of the petition, situate at Raviwer Peth, B Ward, Kolhapur City. The said Ramchandra had acquired the suit premises as a tenant on tenancy basis from the then landlord of the property sometime in the year 1942. By a sale deed dated 17th July 1970, one Shri Mandhar Mirji, the then owner of the property, transferred his right, title and interest in the property in favour of one Mahavir Gajanan Mug, the respondent in this petition. By a letter dated 6th November 1972, the respondent (original plaintiff) called upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1st January 1961 on the assumption that the monthly rent payable by the tenant stipulated between the tenant and the former landlord was Rs. 50/- per month. The tenant did not comply with the demand made by the said notice. The petitioners dispute the validity of the notice of demand on the ground that the demand made was for excessive amount and was not for the amount legally due and payable by the petitioners.

(3.) SOMETIME in the year 1973, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1973 for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur. The only ground which survives for consideration of this Court is as to whether the original tenant had committed default in respect of his obligation to pay arrears of rent within the contemplation of section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the written statement filed in the said suit, the tenant contended that the contractual rent payable in respect of the suit premises was Rs. 7/- per month and not Rs. 50/- per month. the tenant contended that the former landlord Mirji always used to collect contractual rent from the tenant in respect of the suit premises at the said rate. The tenant contended that the standard rent of the suit premises was also liable to be fixed at Rs. 7/- per month. It was also contended by the tenant in the said suit that the defendant-tenant had already paid to the former owner Shri Mirji arrears of rent for the period prior to the transfer of the suit property, but no receipts used to be issued by the then landlord. It was further contended by the defendant that the defendant had paid various amounts to the authority concerned towards water charges, half of which were payable by the landlord. The tenant claimed adjustment in respect of such amount towards the rent payable.