LAWS(BOM)-2003-1-183

GANESH TRIMBAK SARDESHMUKH Vs. BANDU AMBADAS LONKAR

Decided On January 29, 2003
Ganesh Trimbak Sardeshmukh Appellant
V/S
Bandu Ambadas Lonkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Original plaintiffs in Reg. Civil Suit No.108/1981 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 18-11-1989 passed by the Joint District Judge, Akola in Reg. Civil Appeal No.249/1985 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that Gangubai had let out the northern half portion of the ground floor of the suit house to the original defendant no.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.8/-, while the southern portion of the suit house on the ground floor was let out to the original defendant no.2 on the monthly rent of Rs.9/-. In the year 1972-1973, Gangubai initiated Rent Control proceedings against both the defendants. The proceedings against the defendant no.1 was Revenue Case No.20/71/ 72-73 and the proceedings against the defendant no.2 was Revenue Case No.19/71/ 72-73. By the Orders dated 19.8.1974, the Rent Controller granted permission to Gangubai to issue ejectment notice to the defendants. Those orders were confirmed in appeal by R.D.C. Then on 24.1.1975, Gangubai served separate notice on defendant no.1 by the end of 6.3.1975 and on defendant no.2 by the end of 11/2/1975. Those notices were served on the defendants no.1 & 2 on 25.1.1975. The defendants, however, did not vacate the premises. Gangubai died on 4/1/1979, but before her death, she filed the present civil suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs have been substituted as Legal Representatives of Gangubai in the suit after her death. The plaintiffs sought possession of the suit premises from the defendants.

(3.) The defendants 1 & 2 resisted the suit by their Written Statement Exh. 19. Their contention was that even after termination of the tenancy by issuing notices, they continued in possession and paid rent which was accepted from them by the landlady. Therefore, by accepting the rent Gangubai has waived the notice and the permission granted by the Rent Controller. They therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.