HANSRAJ L. RAMAIYA Vs. PRABHAKAR G. KUVOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the landlords and tenant of the suit premises referred in Special Civil Suit No. 122 of 1992, have rushed to this Court against the order passed by the Civil Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 276 of 1992 in the above suit granting prayers 'a', 'b' and 'c' in favour of the tenant and rejecting the prayers 'd' and 'e' against the tenant. The rejection of prayers 'd' and 'e' had prompted the tenant to rush to this Court whereas granting of prayers 'a', 'b' and 'c' has not been to the liking of the landlords, who have also made a grievance in the above Appeal from order.

(2.) IN order to clarify the prayers, which are either granted or refused, some detailed reference appears to be necessary. Those prayers are mentioned in Civil Misc. Application No. 276/92 and prayer 'a' reads as follows :-

(3.) THE short controversy behind this litigation is that the plaintiff in the above suit has been the tenant of the suit premises belonging to the defendants. The tenanted premises comprised of one flat on the ground floor and the same is situated on the right hand side. It seems to be a self-contained flat for which, according to the plaintiff, the rent payable was Rs. 125/- p.m. The grievance of the plaintiff-tenant has been that the defendants were determined to drive him out under one or the other pretext and they have been asking the rise in rent from time to time, to which the plaintiff accorded and ultimately, agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 300/- p.m. However, as the demand of the landlords was enhanced to Rs. 1000/- p.m., the plaintiff-tenant could not obviously accede to the same and naturally expressed his inability to pay the same. This gave rise to the harassment by the landlords to the tenant-plaintiff.