BANSILAL SHANKAR GOSAVI Vs. POPATLAL DHONDIRAM KATARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the premises tenanted by the petitioner on several grounds. The premises which are in the possession of the petitioner as a tenant consists of one room and a verandah and will hereinafter be referred to as "the suit premises". They form part of the house bearing Municipal No. 652 at Karmala in Karmala Taluka of Solapur District. They were leased out to the petitioner on 17th August, 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7.88. Subsequently, that is on or about 1st September, 1967, electric connection was provided to the suit premises. It has been found by the two courts below that it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner would pay Rs. 2 per month for the provision of this electric connection. It was the defendants case that the petitioner was also liable to pay Rs. 3 per month as water charges.

(2.) The respondent served a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act", upon the petitioner informing him that he was in arrears of rent and permitted increases for a period of more than six months. This notice which is dated 11th May, 1969 specifically mentions that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 7.88 per month towards the rent of the suit premises, Rs. 3 per month as water charges and Rs. 2 per month towards electricity charges from 1st September, 1967 to 6th February, 1969. It may be mentioned that subsequently electric supply was disconnected from the suit premises. The total amount of claim was Rs. 189. By a reply dated 16th May, 1969 the petitioner informed the respondent that the rent which the respondent was claiming per month included both water charges and electricity charges. Before the expiry of one month from the date of the notice, however, the petitioner did not send any amount in compliance with the requisition made upon him by the respondent under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. However, on 19th June, 1969 and 17th November, 1969 a sum of Rs. 94.13 was sent in two instalments on the aforesaid dates. This amount was accepted by the respondent.

(3.) It may be stated at this stage that if, as it has been held by the two courts below that the water charges were not separately payable and if as it has been contended by Mr. Shah before me that the electricity charges did not amount to rent, then the amount of Rs. 94.13 which was sent by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent would have satisfied the claim towards the rent upto the end of November 1969. Therefore, a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1970, which was filed by the respondent in the count of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) of Karmala would be a suit without a cause of action because before the said suit was filed arrears of rent upto the end of November 1969 were paid. Admittedly after November 1969 no further notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. As I have mentioned above. Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1970 was filed by the respondent for possession of the suit premises on the ground, among others, that the petitioner has not paid arrears of rent and permitted increases pursuant to the requisition container in the notice issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act within one month after the said requisition was made. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner was guilty of default in the payment of arrears of rent and permitted increases within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act meriting a decree for eviction. This contention was upheld by the learned trial Judge who by his judgment and order dated 31st December, 1975 decreed the suit for possession as well as for the electricity charges in the sum of Rs. 36.83. It requires to be stated that the learned trial Judge held that the petitioner was not liable to pay separate water charges as the amount of Rs. 7.14 claimed by way of rent per month included water charges. This decree passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge of Solapur by his judgment and order dated 6th February, 1978 in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1976 preferred by the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner finds himself in this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.