SHAMSHADBEGAM UNUS INAMDAR Vs. AMINASAHEB BANDGISAHEB MOKASHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith.

(2.) RESPONDENT-LANDLORD had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner tenant. The only ground on which eviction was sought was non-payment of rent. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial Court by its order dated 17th September, 1997 was pleased to dismiss the suit. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Court by its order dated 5th May, 2001 was pleased to reverse the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. The point for determination and the finding recorded therein by the Appellate Court was whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a willful defaulter in payment of rent amount in respect of the suit premises since 14th December, 1991. It answered the point in the affirmative. The Appellate Court had recorded a finding that the notice dated 22nd April, 1993 Exhibit 17 as required was served on the petitioner which the petitioner tenant had received on 25th March, 1994 (Exhibit 18 ). The Appellate Court considered the requirement of section 12 of the Act and held that the petitioner factually had not disputed that rent had not been paid to the respondent landlord since 14th December, 1991. It has further come on record that the petitioner did not file any application for standard rent. The landlord had proved his case under section 12 (3) of the Act. The petitioner filed written statement on 21st January, 1995. The issues were framed at Exhibit 14 on 4th September, 1995. The Appellate Court held that the first date of hearing was 4th September, 1995. On that date or even prior to that date the petitioner had made no attempt to pay the rent amount. The evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on 7th March, 1997. The matter was adjourned to 12th August, 1997. It is only then that an application was moved by the petitioner to deposit the rent amount for a period of 72 months. The application was allowed on the same day and the amount was deposited only on 28th August, 1997. Based on these findings of fact the Court held that the respondent was entitled for a decree in his favour. The petitioner had failed to show readiness and willingness to pay the rent and consequently ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) AT the hearing of the petition the issue is limited to a pure question of law which according to the petitioner must be answered in his favour and result in the order of the Appellate Court being set aside. The question for determination can be formulated as under:-