MARUTI GANPAT PARTE Vs. SAKHARAM VITHAL DANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of a tenement in a building owned by the respondent situated at Mumbra in Thane District. By letter dated 3rd October, 1975 written on behalf of the respondent by his Advocate petitioner was called upon to pay arrears of rent for a period of six months from Ist April 1975 to 30th September, 1975. The rent of the premises was Rs. 20/- per month. By the same notice the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 6/- as service charges. Included in the demand was also a sum of Rs. 57/- alleged to be by way of water charges payable by the petitioner. Thus the total demand made by the notice on 3rd April, 1975 was for a sum of Rs. 183/-.

(2.) THIS notice was received by the petitioner on 5th October, 1975. The petitioner sent by money order on 13th October, 1975 a sum of Rs. 126/- to the respondent on the address which he was given in the letter of 3rd October, 1975 written with the respondent's Advocate. The money order was returned to the petitioner on 25th October, 1975 with an endorsement "not known" made by the post office.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge had no difficulty in holding that the petitioner had complied with the requirement under 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore no decree for eviction could be passed against him. This was so because the amount of rent which the respondent could have legally claimed as due for a period of six months had been sent by the petitioner within one month, after the notice was received by him. The sum of Rs. 57/- which had been included in the notice of demand was held to be illegal by the learned trial Judge because no water charges were payable either under the law or under any contract by the petitioner to the respondent.