TARABAI MAKBULKHAN BARGIR Vs. TARABAI DASHRATH SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 1st April, 1771 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Sangli allowing Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1783 and dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession.

(2.) THE petitioner is a landlord of the property bearting C. T. S. No 1877/1 Mangwar Peth, Miraj District sangli. The respondent is a tenant of two rooms (hereinafter referred to suit premises) in the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/. The respondent was in arrears of rent from January, 1971 to June, 1976. Therefore, by a notice of demand dated 12th July, 1976 the petitioner terminated the tenancy of the respondent and called upon her to pay the arrears of rent. As the rent was not paid within one month, the petitioner filed a suit for possession bearing Regular civil Suit No. 3 of 1979 in the Court of Civil Judge, junior Division, Miraj. By a judgment and order dated 9th November, 1982 the trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of default. the ground of bonafide requirement was however rejected. On appeal by the respondent-tenant, the District Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the petitioner's suit by the judgment and order dated 1st April 1991. That judgment is impugned in this petition.

(3.) BY a notice of demand dated 12th July, 1976 the petitioner demanded from the respondent a sum of rs. 660/- being the arrears of rent from January 1971 to June, 1976. There is no dispute about standard rent and no application for determination of standard rent has ever been filed by the respondent. The respondent did not pay the rent within one month from the date of notice. The appellate Court however held that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 206. 00 to the deceased husband of the petitioner and had also paid the municipal taxes amounting to Rs. 227. 00. The appellate Court held that the respondent was entitled to adjust the amount of municipal taxes paid by her towards rent and after payment of Rs. 206. 00 paid to the petitioner's husband and municipal taxes of Rs. 227. 00 were taken into consideration, the respondent was entitled to an adjustment of Rs. 434. 00, out of the sum of Rs. 660. 00. The appellate Court held that in the notice, the petitioner had not shown the adjustment and therefore the demand of Rs. 660. 00 made in the notice was excessive and exorbitant. Relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in ganpat vs Motilal reported in AIR 1977 BOMBAY 344, the appellate Court held that the notice was invalid as it made a grossly excessive and exorbitant demand of rs. and60/- when actually a sum of Rs. 660. 00 minus rs. 434/- = Rs. 226. 00 only was due. The appellate Court therefore held that notice of demand was not valid and therefore the respondent could not be branded as a defaulter.