KARTARSING HUKUMSING CHOG Vs. MUKTABAI PARASHRAM PANSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arising under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act') has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The point involved is in a way simple but the reference became necessary because of two conflicting judgments of Single Judges both the which were reported. Hence the learned Single Judge thought that the point should be disposed of by a larger Bench.

(2.) The petitioner before us is a tenant of the property and present respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord, who was the plaintiff in the suit. There is no dispute that the petitionertenant is a monthly tenant and pays an aggregate rent as there is no dispute about it in this litigation. Admittedly, it appears that the landlord served a notice on the tenant on April 15, 1965 , as per Ex. 24, and claimed arrears of Rs. 123.44 at the rate of Rs. 8 per month. This would be the arrears for more than 15 months. The tenant replied by his notice dated 24 April, 1965 and pointed out that since October, 1960 the landlord has not been issuing printed receipts. He, therefore, alleged a certain accounting of the payments made by him to the Municipality and also to the landlord by way of Money Orders. He also alleged certain repairs amounting to Rs. 60 and the agreement to adjust that amount towards the rent. After giving his own accounting the tenant alleged that the arrears due were only Rs. 98.25 and they were remitted by Money Order within a period of one months from the date of receipt of notice. Ex. 24.

(3.) As the Money Order did not cover the entire rent due,. the landlord filed a suit for possession on July 2, 1965. As many as five grounds were urged for claiming possession, which included as one of the grounds that non-payment of entire arrears of rent within a period of one month next after the service of notice. All other grounds on which possession was claimed were specifically given up in the Appellate Court. In the trial Court, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the arrears of rent were not as alleged by the landlord but a certain accounting may show that the tenant was not in arrears for more than six months. He therefore dismissed the suit for possession on the ground of non - payment of rent.