SAWLIRAM BALAJI DIGHE Vs. SATYABHAMABAI KISANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of original proceedings instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) Suit for possession was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and nuisance and annoyance. The defendants denied the suit claim. The trial Court held against the plaintiff on the question of nuisance and annoyance but held in favour of the plaintiff on the question of claim for possession on the ground of arrears of rent as also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. Consistent therewith, the trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal against the said decree, the learned Assistant Judge hearing the same reversed the findings of the trial Court on the question of arrears of rent as also on the question of bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. It was found that the defendants case clearly fell outside the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act and so far as section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act was concerned, the defendants were held to have fully complied therewith. On the question of bona fide personal requirement, it was found that the plaintiff himself had not personally entered the witness box to support the said claim. But what is more important, it was also found that the plaintiff had, during the pendency of the proceedings, received actual possession of two rooms from another tenant, one Patel. The claim for bona fide personal requirement was also consequently negatived. Consistent with these findings, the learned Assistant Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence this petition by the plaintiff.

(3.) Now taking up first the claim for possession on the ground of arrears, I find the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Assistant Judge unassailable. Immediately after the receipt of the suit notice dated July 20, 1976, which claimed arrears from 1st October, 1975 till 30th June, 1976 (i.e. for a period of nine months), the tenant sent two money orders to the plaintiff, one for Rs. 300/- and the other for Rs. 250/-, thus making within a period of one month of the receipt of the suit notice payment of Rs. 550/- to the landlord. The contractual rent of the suit premises was Rs. 25/- per month for the residential portion and Rs. 30/- per month for the one room used by the defendants as flour mill. In addition, the permitted increases came to Rs. 6/- per month. Thus, the total rent including permitted increases was Rs. 61/- per month. The arrears being for a period of nine months, the total amount due would be Rs. 549/-. The tenant here had admittedly sent to the landlord within one month of the receipt of the suit notice Rs. 550/-. Thus, the entire demand had been fully satisfied.