PANDURANG SAMBHAJI JONDHALE Vs. SUCHITA DEOKARAN NAVANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment. The respondent in both the writ petitions is the landlady who had instituted two separate suits against the respective petitioners. Both the suits have been decreed in favour of the respondent; the petitioners in the respective petition preferred separate appeals before the District Court and the Appellate Court by common Judgment and Decree has dismissed the appeals. The present writ petitions have been, therefore, filed by the tenants. The Writ Petition No. 828 of 1990 arises out of R. C. S. No. 223 of 1983, whereas Writ Petition No. 829 of 1990 arises out of R. C. S. No 225 of 1983. Since the question of law argued in both the writ petitions is common and the relevant dates for deciding the controversy in both the writ petitions are also common, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE main question that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is whether the respondent-landlady could have instituted the suit for eviction against the petitioners-tenants on the ground of default within the meaning of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1949 on the premise that the tenants were in arrears in respect of amount towards rent prior to the period on which the respondent-landlady purchased the suit property.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the respondent-landlady purchased the suit property on 10th January, 1983. Immediately thereafter, on 2nd February, 1983, the respondent-landlady issued demand notice to the tenants in both the writ petitions demanding arrears of rent commencing from 1st April, 1979 to 10th of January 1983 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. It is not in dispute that the demised premises were let out to the tenants on monthly rent basis. In response to the said notice the tenants gave reply on 20-2-1983 disputing the fact that they are in arrears of rent as alleged. Besides, the tenants filed standard rent application on 24th February, 1983 claiming standard rent in respect of the demised premises was Rs. 20/- p. m. and not Rs. 40/- as demanded. It is also not in dispute that no orders much less any interim order has been passed in this proceeding directing the tenants to deposit or pay interim rent. It is common ground that eventually respondent-landlady filed two separate suits referred to above against the respective tenants for possession of the suit property on the ground of default as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Trial Court decreed both the suit on each of the above ground. Against this decision the tenants preferred separate appeals before the District Court. It is relevant to note that, before the District Court, the learned counsel appearing for the landlady did not press the ground of bona fide requirement. In other words, Appeal Court was called upon to adjudicate only the ground of default. On the basis of the rival contentions, the Appellate Court proceeded to decide the ground of default and has answered the same against the petitioners holding that the petitioners were in arrears of rent for more than 6 months and, therefore, defaulters within the meaning of Section 12 (3) (a) of the Act.