RAGHUNATH BHASKAR CHITALE Vs. JAGANNATH BALWANT KUMATHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 3221 of 1970 which was purely a money suit and was filed to recover the arrears of rent, education cess, electricity charges for water pump, notice charges etc. The money claim made was for Rs. 8,000/-. A second suit was files bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 2787 of 1975 for the possession of the tenanted premises. In that suit a money claim for Rs. 7,000/- was also made which was towards the arrears of rent and damages in lieu of rent, education cess and notice charges. The trial Court dismissed the claim for possession and decreed the money claim partially. Aggrieved by the said decrees in both the suits the parties preferred appeals before the District Court which were heard and decided by the Fourth Extra Assistant Judge, Pune vide his judgement and order dated 16th August, 1980. The appeal Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a defaulter. The defendant had not caused any damage to the property nor had secured any alternate accommodation at Wai. So far as the question of fixation of standard rent was concerned, the appeal Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 175/- per month and confirmed the money decree passed by the trial Court. However, it dismissed the appeals filed by the landlord so far as the possession of the premises was concerned. Being aggrieved by these judgments and decree the landlord has filed the present two writ petitions.

(2.) So far as the Writ Petition No. 1210 of 1981 is concerned, which was mainly for recovery of a money claim towards rent etc., in my opinion the trial Court was right in not granting a decree for a time-barred claim. That was a pure and simple suit for recovery of an amount and admittedly the landlord could not have recovered the time-barred claim in the said suit. This position could not be disputed by Shri Gokhale the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and, therefore, the Rule is discharged in Writ Petition No. 1210 of 1981 with no order as to costs.

(3.) So far as the Writ Petition No. 1868 of 1981 is concerned, it was mainly confined to an issue of non-payment of standard rent by the defendant-tenant and, therefore, he was defaulter within the meaning of section 12(3) and 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act. It appears that the respondent-tenant was a tenant of the old premises. Thereafter by an agreement between the parties he vacated the premises and it was agreed that he will be allotted premises in the newly-constructed building. Accordingly in the newly-constructed building the tenant was given a flat on rent with effect from 1st February, 1967. By relevant term which related to the payment of rent, it was agree between the parties that the rent will payable from the date of occupation of the flats and if there is no agreement between the parties relating to the amount of rent, then the rent payable will be as fixed by the competent Court of law. It appear that the other tenants of the same building occupying similar area filed an application for fixation of standard rent and the standard rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. After the order of the Court fixing the standard rent in other matters, the petitioner-landlord issued a notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act on 13th October, 1970 and had contended therein that the defendant-tenant has not paid a single pie towards the rent from 1st February, 1967 itself. Since nothing was paid even after the notice, the suit for recovery of rent was filed on 19th October, 1970 wherein an amount of Rs. 8000/- was claimed, in the written statement it was contended by the defendant that the rent fixed in other matters is not binding upon him and the claim is also partially barred by limitation. In the mean time the tenant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent and interim standard rent of Rs. 100/- was fixed by the competent Court. This application for fixation of standard rent was filed on 7th November, 1970 and the interim standard rent at Rs. 100/- was fixed on 9th November, 1970. The defendant then started paying the standard rent at that rate. However, the said standard rent application came to be dismissed for default on 13th June, 1974. After the said application was dismissed for default the tenant again filed another application for fixation of standard rent which was also dismissed for default. Thereafter the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord on 20th July, 1975. In the said suit the landlord had claimed possession of the suit premises also on the ground of change of user, act of waste and that the defendant had secured alternate accommodation. It appears that even after the dismissal of the application, the tenant deposited the amount in the first suit which was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It is also clear that the application for fixation of standard rent was filed by the defendant-tenant within a period of one month from the issuance of the notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act. The first standard rent application came to be dismissed on 13th June, 1974 and the second application was also dismissed for default.